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

October 9, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L106 - Wed 9 Oct 1996 / Mer 9 Oct 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

JIM SHAW

OBSTETRICAL CARE

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

GEORGE MCLEOD

ADULT EDUCATION

SPORTS FUNDING

FLU AND PNEUMOCOCCAL IMMUNIZATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

ADULT EDUCATION

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

AUTO INDUSTRY LABOUR DISPUTE

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

GROW ONTARIO

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

VISITORS

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PAROLE SYSTEM

GOVERNMENT POLICY

FIREFIGHTING

QUEENSWAY GENERAL HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

BEAR HUNTING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SCHOOL PRAYERS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Anyone who is wondering why last Wednesday in the Legislature I demanded that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations release a secret government report entitled Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995, would be well aware today that this report is dynamite for the Premier and his cabinet.

My colleague Liberal MPP Bruce Crozier has requested that the minister release this very revealing report to the justice committee that is dealing with a government bill that would permit up to 20,000 VLTs or video slot machines to be placed in bars and restaurants in every neighbourhood in Ontario.

The contention by the Premier, the Solicitor General and the consumer minister that they have not read the report is simply not believable.

Now that several elements of the secret report have come to light and the TV program W Five has confirmed many of the warnings that we in the Liberal caucus have been issuing, namely, that illegal activities and the involvement of criminal elements are prevalent in government-sanctioned gambling in Ontario, surely the Premier will release the entire report to the public.

To proceed with the Premier's bill allowing 20,000 video slot machines across Ontario would be madness in view of the latest revelations. I call upon the Premier to come to his senses and withdraw this ill-advised legislation.

It appears that nothing less than a full public inquiry into gambling activities in Ontario will clear the air and reassure the people of the province of Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Yesterday, in answer to questions from my new leader, the Minister of Labour said that we had not made any improvements at all to the plight of garment workers, particularly those who are working in the home, and went on to talk about the improvements they have made.

First of all, let me set the record straight. Our government, in July 1994, made improvements to the Employment Standards Act that removed the current exclusions for home workers under the Employment Standards Act with regard to hours of work, overtime and holiday pay. We also created a special 10% premium on the general minimum wage to cover such overhead costs as heating and electricity and the purchase cost of machinery normally borne by the employer. We also required employers to provide home workers with a written

summary of their conditions of employment, including piece or hourly rates, the nature and amount of work and the completion deadline.

Further to that, the minister had the audacity to say that she's made great strides in the last year. Well, I guess from one perspective she has: She's made things a lot worse for workers in this province and made things a lot better for her corporate friends. I'll stack up our agenda on labour legislation and fighting for workers, particularly the most vulnerable, such as home workers, any day of the week against the ongoing attack that this government has launched against workers, particularly women, in this province. I'll have that debate and that comparison any day of the week.

JIM SHAW

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): As the members of this House know full well, the 1996 Paralympic Games were held in Atlanta in August 1996. It is my privilege to stand and recognize the important accomplishments of one of my constituents. Mr Jim Shaw, a 23-year-old from Newcastle, Ontario, is a world champion who also suffers from cerebral palsy. Jim Shaw has been competing since 1992 and in Atlanta won two golds and a bronze medal in the world's largest competition for athletes with disabilities. Jim won a bronze in javelin, a gold medal in shot-put and a world record gold medal toss of 41.6 metres in the discus.

The Canadian team placed seventh in a field of 120 countries. Jim Shaw is now recognized not only as a local hero but indeed a world champion. I have met Jim and am proud of his humble and friendly manner, a great role model for any young person. Jim speaks of his disability rather matter-of-factly. He says, "It is probably what most people tend to look at, but I seldom consider it."

I would ask all members to recognize the accomplishments of Jim Shaw and all our disabled athletes. I know we are all proud of them, their accomplishments and courage both on and off the field.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today I address my remarks to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, following my question regarding obstetrical care in my community, the minister left the chamber and went into a reporters' scrum to announce a clinic of some sort that's going to magically appear in my community. He did this assuming as well that the hospitals were fully onside and prepared to do this within 30 to 60 days.

The reality is that the meeting he was involved in with hospitals from my community involved an integrated delivery system for maternal health care, a fully rounded program which is a far longer-term solution and does nothing to address the immediate concerns of women in my community who are still on a list and still do not have prenatal care or obstetrical care and do not know who will be delivering their babies.

I find it absolutely irresponsible that a minister of this crown could possibly go to reporters and make an announcement without having an official amount of money it will cost to implement such a system. One group is talking about a long-term solution, while the minister is saying he is going to find redress for an immediate solution to the problem our women have in my community. I insist that the minister come to the table and say he is prepared to provide the funding for such a long-term solution, yes; and he must also be prepared to address the immediate concerns of women in my community who need care today. Thank you, Mr Minister -- Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Heaven knows he'd like to be called Mr Minister, but at this point it's Mr Speaker.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, as you know, the minister responsible, the Attorney General, has been saying in this House for the past number of months that nothing he has done within the family support plan has caused the system to come into disarray. To put it into perspective, the government has moved on an initiative to privatize the family support plan and in the interim has really put the system into jeopardy.

We have a number of cases we have raised in this House on behalf of constituents who have come to our offices and said, "I have a situation where my ex-husband has paid the support to the family support plan," and the ex-wife has not received the money coming back. The minister keeps on denying that such cases exist. Time after time we have come into this House, we have presented cases to the minister and the minister at each opportunity has turned around and said, "No, there's nothing wrong."

I have here yet another five cases of that nature that have come to my constituency office over the last number of weeks. These are just the tip of the iceberg. I want to present these to the minister on behalf of the constituents of Cochrane South and say to him that if there isn't a problem with this system, these people sure don't know it because they certainly have a problem with the system. I call on the minister to put the system back the way it was so that people in the family support plan get the money they're entitled to.

GEORGE MCLEOD

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): There's no doubt that over the term of this government there'll be many occasions to celebrate the accomplishments of volunteers in our community and to praise them for the extraordinary way in which their deeds make this a better society in which we live.

It's unlikely, though, that I will ever again meet an Ontarian with the record of community service as exceptional as the one recognized in my riding last week. Among 34 volunteers recognized by the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 258, one volunteer stood out. Mr George McLeod was recognized for 76 years of continuous service to the legion and its predecessors, the British Empire Service League and the Great War Veterans.

Mr McLeod joined the army at age 14 and after two years of active service overseas returned to Canada and joined the Northwest Mounted Police at age 16. He was one of 180 police sent to put down the Winnipeg riots in 1919. Returning to Toronto, he joined the Toronto fire department where he served for 42 years and retired as a captain. Mr McLeod lost two of his sons in the Second World War. During his 76 years of legion service he has served in most of the executive roles.

I was truly humbled to meet such an incredible link with our country's past and I'm sure all members join me in saluting Mr George McLeod for his work in the Legion and in the firefighters' association, and extending our thanks for his service to his community and to his country as both a volunteer and a patriot.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): There was a press conference today by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, which released a survey of 7,723 adult high school students. It's a fascinating piece of work, an excellent piece of work, and something I'm sure the Minister of Education will want to take a second look at because of the implications.

The survey was conducted in 117 schools during May and revealed some very interesting statistics. It first of all revealed that the adult students had a higher degree of representation among women, visible minorities and people with disabilities. Yet when you look at the success story of this program, 83% graduate; 36% move on to colleges and universities and 47% move right into the workplace. Not only that; a full 50% are completely off welfare after they've completed their program.

I would challenge the government to find a program that is more effective, more efficient than the existing program, which is now being hampered and cut. If they read this particular report and if they want to make a decision based on information and not just on politics and economics, they must support adult education.

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I want to comment today on the announcement by the Minister of Citizenship last Friday around the new strategy for amateur sport. What becomes really clear, having attended the conference and talked to people who are affected by these cuts, is that what she announced is not a strategy. What she announced is simply another cut to kids and programs for children. Cutting funding to sports programs means fewer kids will have the chance to take part.

It seems that this minister and this government are forgetting that sports and recreation programs play a major role in the development of our young people. They learn cooperation, they learn leadership skills, they get some exercise and they have some fun. Our kids are richer for that experience.

In tying her criteria for funding to the Olympic sports as the only ones that will be funded from now on, what the minister is forgetting is that this keeps out of the funding scheme sports like the Ontario Ball Hockey Association, a program which involves some 17,000 young people across the province and which, as they themselves indicated to us, is in the top 20% in terms of provincial participation. Their seeming preoccupation with cutting administration costs seems to forget that it's those administrators who coordinate the many hundreds of volunteers throughout the province who end up providing these programs. So what we're seeing here again is not a strategy but another series of cuts.

FLU AND PNEUMOCOCCAL IMMUNIZATION

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I would like to recognize October as National Flu Prevention Awareness Month. It's flu season and we all know the symptoms and the consequences. But for some 2,000 to 5,000 people, the flu can be life-threatening. People at risk of the flu and pneumococcal disease are seniors and anyone with deficient immune systems, chronic heart, lung, kidney or liver diseases, and those with HIV infections.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order, please.

Mrs Johns: Health Minister Jim Wilson recently announced a new $20-million program to protect Ontarians at risk with pneumococcal disease and influenza over the next three years. The pneumococcal vaccine is now being distributed to physicians' offices and long-term-care facilities. The most vulnerable citizens in nursing homes and homes for the aged, as well as those at risk, will be the first to be offered the vaccine free of charge through their family physicians over the next two years. Healthy seniors will be offered the vaccine in the program's third year. After that, the vaccine will be offered to people as they turn 65.

This government, through its immunization programs -- $4.5 million to eradicate measles, $11 million to protect students from hepatitis B and $20 million to protect seniors from pneumococcal disease -- is again meeting the commitment we made in the Common Sense Revolution. We will reinvest dollars in preventive care which can help people avoid becoming ill in the first place.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Our government has made a strong commitment to raise the standards of education in Ontario --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, the member for Hamilton East.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I haven't been in a situation where there was catcalling recently -- and to create a system that offers students a quality education while improving accountability and affordability to parents and taxpayers.

Under the leadership of Premier Mike Harris, this government has made major strides to improve quality and to make sure the public receives full value for its education tax dollar.

I have already announced a number of steps to achieve this goal, including the establishment of an Ontario College of Teachers, the introduction of province-wide testing by the Education Quality and Accountability Office and the release of the secondary school reform paper, which will be the basis for extensive consultations across the province in November. Later this year I will also introduce a more specific curriculum that will set high standards for our students in grades 1 to 9.

In tandem with these initiatives, I am pleased to release a standard report card that will better inform parents about their children's progress. Too many parents have been dissatisfied by the ambiguity of the different report cards used across the province. A standard report card will ensure consistency across the province and will give parents specific information about how their child is doing and what needs to be improved.

Right now 900 schools are field-testing a series of models that we have developed. We will make adjustments based on the feedback we receive from teachers and parents, and by September of next year each school in the province will use a provincial report card.

Surely even the members opposite will realize that having an improved system of reporting to parents, a system designed with the help of parents, will help improve the quality of our education system. I am pleased to announce this initiative today.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Related to the degree of standardized testing, we agree that the initiative should be well done. But I have a few comments to make in relation to that.

First of all, the minister will know that the Toronto Board of Education went through a year and a half of developing a standard report card and field-tested this thoroughly. To my knowledge, they have not been consulted in terms of your particular initiative. It seems to me that's a very large sampling you might want to take into consideration in terms of the experience they've gained and what they've learned after they've introduced a standard report card.

There was an element in their report card which I thought was a fascinating feature. It had an opportunity for students to comment and engage with their teachers in terms of the marks they received. As the minister will well know, if a student is involved in a degree of self-evaluation and assessment, it heightens the sense of social accountability for the student, the interest of the student and the sense of feeling that, "This isn't just someone else judging me in a totally objective manner."

Minister, what is the role of the Education Quality and Accountability Office? It seems to me that this office was set up to manage this kind of testing. Are they playing a role in that? With all the wisdom and corporate memory that they've accumulated to date, is that being offered to the process?

The other point would be the flexibility. We have a big province. As you know, we have many regions of Ontario where the lifestyle varies. It's quite different to live in a small northern town or a small town in eastern Ontario or southwestern Ontario than it might be to live in downtown Metro Toronto. What kind of accommodations are there? There should be a core test and report card, but there should also be some flexibility to allow for lifestyle in the various regions throughout Ontario.

You made one statement in here, that "Under the leadership of Premier Mike Harris, this government has made major strides to improve quality and to make sure the public receives full value for its education tax dollar." If we took a report card on you, and my colleague will speak on this in a moment, one of the areas will be the area of the capital freeze, the freeze on renovations for schools.

We have a youngster with us today all the way from Carleton Place, he and his mom, who have come here to talk with you to let you know what his school is like, the deteriorated situation his school is in, Carleton Place High School. I hope you relate this to your own situation when you look at standardized testing.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a report card here in my hand, A First Year Report Card on the Ontario Government. It goes on to talk about excellence in education, and just let me quote from that report card.

"A larger share of the education dollar is going directly to `learning,' where it matters most!" Well, I've suggested to this minister that he doesn't know where it matters the most. I challenged him the other day to call a teacher. I don't believe he's done that yet. That's where it matters the most, Minister: in the classroom.

Minister, you have a letter from the Dryden Board of Education, Ignace school. They have actually given you an invitation because they want you to come into their classroom to find out what's going on in those classrooms. You talk about the education dollar going back into the classroom. Well, it's not happening. They've issued you a challenge to come and learn with them in their classroom.

This is the way the letter ends, because I don't think you've responded to it yet and maybe have not even read it:

"I do not think you can have any idea what a teacher does or what happens in schools today unless you are there. You can sit and talk to bureaucrats as long as you want, but until you walk in someone else's shoes, you do not have the whole picture."

I encourage you to get involved. Get involved in what's going on in the classroom on the front line. Tell those teachers they're doing something that's going to help us in the future with our future generation. I ask you to take up the challenge that's been given to you by the principal of Ignace public school, where she's actually asked you to come in and find out what's going on in the classroom. I ask you to follow up on the challenge I gave you the other day to talk to a teacher, a teacher who goes into that classroom every day.

Minister, I don't think your heart is really where it should be: in the classroom with those students, where it means the most.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to respond to the Minister of Education and Training's comments regarding a standard report card. As all members of the House are aware, the pilot projects for implementation of a standard report card were initiated by the previous government and by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside as Minister of Education and Training. For that reason, obviously, we are in support of the fact that the minister is proceeding with this initiative to make it easier for parents to understand in a standardized way what progress their children are making in education. I think it's perhaps time that the minister received a report card himself.

One of the things we might look at with regard to the standard report card is the fact that there is apparently no place on it listing physical or health education as a subject area. I wonder why the minister and the ministry are not including physical and health education as part of the standard report card requirements since, as we all know, physical and health education is very important for the overall education of a student.

Having said that, let's judge the minister on his own commitment. This was a party that was elected with a commitment that it would not hurt the classroom, that classroom education would not suffer at all. Yet we've seen this government take $400 million out of public education last year, somewhere between 5% and 8% of the grants to school boards removed from education funding and as a result of that we've seen junior kindergarten programs terminated, some of them changed substantially or combined with senior kindergarten programs, again adversely affecting the classroom education of the students involved in those junior kindergarten programs.

We've seen changes in the funding for adult education in the province, so that students who are 21 years of age or over are being told they only can get their courses through continuing education programs, which are funded at half of the amount of day school education programs. As a result, many adult students are not able to graduate and are stuck on the welfare rolls.

With regard to the Education Quality and Accountability Office that is supposed to be central to this whole process, we passed the legislation setting up that office, but for some reason --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Education Quality and Accountability Office -- for some reason, the appointment of the chair of that organization has been apparently revoked by the cabinet. I'd like to know what is going on over there. The minister says he is committed, and his government and the Premier are committed, to improving the quality of education and to making sure the public receives full value for its education tax dollar. After taking $400 million out of education last year, which on an annualized basis is about $800 million to $1 billion, the minister is now musing about taking another $600 million out of education this year.

The minister says he's taking these measures to ensure that every Ontario student receives the highest quality of education possible. Let's be frank. When a decision is based on whether or not to improve quality or whether or not to take money out, the fact is that everything that is being done by this minister and his government in education is fiscally driven. The question is not whether quality will be improved, but how much money can be saved by cutting programs, and if it hurts education and it hurts classroom education, that doesn't matter.

The standardized report card that this minister should get from every student in this province, from every teacher in this province, from every trustee in this province, from every parent in this province is an F for destroying classroom education because he wants to get as much money as possible out of public education in Ontario.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order dealing with procedures in a committee, particularly the government agencies committee and standing order 106. It's something I would like to set out for you briefly and ask that you take a look at, because I think there has been a breach of the standing orders and I believe it's the kind of thing that you as Speaker need to take a look at.

As you know, we in that committee, among other things, review intended government appointees. I know you're familiar with that process because you sat as a member of that committee in the past.

This morning the committee was scheduled to review three intended appointees. One of those three intended appointees had been chosen by the government caucus: Richard Johnston, who had been designated by the cabinet as the intended appointee to the position of chair of the Education Quality and Accountability Office, in fact to be reappointed to that position, which he's held for the last couple of years.

We discovered at the committee that he had been called yesterday some time and told not to appear because, as we understand it, he was told that his appointment had been withdrawn.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, please. I'm having difficulty hearing.

Mr Silipo: The point I want to raise with you is that the communication we had in front of the committee this morning in my view is not consistent with the standing orders. I'm not standing here on a point of order questioning the wisdom the government may or may not have shown in reappointing or not reappointing Mr Johnston; I appreciate that's an issue that has to do with other concerns, political and otherwise. But I'm not raising that issue with you as part of this point of order. I want to be very clear about that.

As you may recall, the intended appointments process comes to us in this way: The Premier, upon a decision of the cabinet, sends to members of the standing committee on government agencies a list of intended appointees, with the words, "I am attaching information on intended order-in-council appointments to agencies, boards and commissions which received cabinet approval on" whatever the date is.

There's very clearly a cabinet decision made to appoint these people subject to the process set out in standing order 106. That process allows government members as well as opposition members the ability to review some of those intended appointees. That process was followed to that extent and, as I said, resulted in Mr Richard Johnston having been chosen by the government caucus to be questioned this morning, his appointment to be reviewed this morning.

We then discovered, upon arriving at the committee this morning, that there was a letter from Marilyn Sharma, who is the general manager of the Public Appointments Secretariat, informing the committee that one item included in that memorandum from the Premier has been withdrawn and should therefore not be considered.

My point in raising this with you, Mr Speaker, is that I believe that is not following the standing order. I would argue that I don't think there is a process in the standing order that allows for those intended appointments to be pulled back once the committee is on the verge of that process. But even if that were the case, if that were allowed, I suggest to you that we have had no communication; that the cabinet, which made that initial decision and which kickstarts the process -- according to standing order 106 it very clearly kickstarts the process.

It says, "A minister of the crown shall lay on the table a certificate stating that the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Premier, as the case may be, intends to appoint a person to an agency, board or commission." It doesn't say an employee or anybody else; it says "a minister or the Premier."

In this case, the notification we received was not proper because it was not from the Premier, was not from a minister of the crown, and did not specifically indicate that the cabinet had changed its mind.

I ask you to take a look at that because I think it's a serious breach of the process, a very detailed process that's set out under standing order 106 as it relates to the review process for intended appointees.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Dovercourt for his point of order and, obviously, the thought that went into it. There are a couple of points I would make previous to my ruling. First and foremost, it's not up to the Speaker to begin second-guessing rulings by the chairs of committees. The chairs of committees would rule this in or out of order, and that's their role, and propriety would dictate that those rules are made.

The only way that the Speaker may begin to second-guess or suggest that the rulings be overturned or changed would be if a majority of the committee members voted or the committee came to the Legislature seeking a ruling from the Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker: -- or not, obviously. That is the only possible way the Speaker may become involved in committee hearings, rulings or decisions made by the Chair. The only alternative you may take at this time, if you would like the Speaker to review the ruling made by the Chair at the time, is if the committee decided en masse and in vote to bring the ruling before the House and in fact before the Speaker.

I have no rights or privileges to begin second-guessing rulings of chairs of committees. That would leave me in the awkward and tenuous position of having to hear points of order on all decisions potentially made at committee level.

Finally, I guess, if it is a position and a bone of contention that you want to see this, you have every right and obligation on behalf of your constituents to go back to the committee and seek majority consensus on the committee to appeal to the Speaker.

Mr Silipo: Mr Speaker, if I may just briefly --

The Speaker: Briefly.

Mr Silipo: Very briefly. I would have under normal circumstances done exactly what you had suggested because I believe, as you do, that that process is the normal process. I specifically raised this with you because standing order 106 is a different order, I believe, than the others as they apply to the processes of a committee. In fulfilling its obligations under standing order 106, the standing committee on government agencies is acting for the entire Legislature, and I think there is a difference in that.

I would ask you to just take a look at that, because I believe there is a distinction between the application of this particular order and any other disagreement that I or any other member of the committee might have on any other issue. I would just ask you to take a look at that.

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt, I will give you my undertaking to review it, if that's what you're asking of me. I will review it in fairness and in light -- you will probably find, from my last statement I made, I will be predisposed to making the decision I'm making. But if you're asking me to review it, I'll be more than happy to review it and report back.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Further on yesterday's exchange between the member for Hamilton Centre and the Speaker with respect to withdrawal and what constitutes withdrawing a comment, I want to be very clear with the House today that many Speakers have different

interpretations on what is considered withdrawn and what isn't. I tried to get on the record yesterday exactly how I felt. Maybe I was not clear enough and maybe yesterday was a good time to allow the member to set the parameters.

In essence, in future, you have two options when you're asked to withdraw: You may withdraw the comment, no caveats, unequivocally withdraw, or you don't. Obviously ultimately if you don't, then you will be named and asked to be escorted out. But I don't want there to be any unknown quantities involved when you've been asked to withdraw. There are simply no ifs, ands or buts, as I said yesterday; it's simply withdraw or not. Many Speakers work different ways. I think this is the most appropriate way to pursue that issue and you're given your choice in that matter.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of privilege with regard to the comment that you just made, Mr Speaker: I just want to be very clear, since I was the focus of your comments, that yesterday might or might not be the best example of that, and I think we managed to work our way through that and I think both of us used a fair amount of discretion and got through the moment.

I would like to ask you what happens to any member in this House where they sincerely are not sure or not clear, or in their opinion did not and you're asking an admission of guilt; I find it hard to understand why one has to stand and say, "I'm automatically guilty," even if I disagree or don't know why, when --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate what you're saying, to the member for Hamilton Centre. I think what I'm trying to point out is, I would not ask a member to withdraw unless I'm very clear that that is in fact out of order. What I'm trying to point out is that you're asked to withdraw by the Speaker and the Speaker is clear -- I was very clear yesterday that what you said was completely out of order, I felt, and I didn't want to push the envelope yesterday. Because it's a new Speaker, I want to give you the parameters and the guidelines.

What I'm trying to point out is, if I'm asking someone to withdraw, I think it's completely out of order, and it's just that simple. Really, if you don't have a Speaker being able to make those kinds of decisions, then we fall into chaos. I thank the member for Hamilton Centre.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last week, Liberal House leader Mr Jim Bradley asked the minister for a secret police report entitled Gambling In Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995. The member for Essex South repeated the request earlier at justice committee. Both times they were refused.

We now know why the minister is deliberately keeping the report from the opposition and from government benchers, because we are concerned about the proliferation of video slot machines: This secret police report points to a web of organized crime throughout Ontario's gaming industry.

My question to the minister is, will he release the secret report so that we can do our job as legislators and assess the real impact of video slot machines and the threat of organized crime in this province?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I refer this question to my colleague the Solicitor General.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): In response to the member's question related to the press reports and the so-called, as she described it, "secret report," this was a report commissioned through the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario. It is their report. It is not the government's report. I would respectfully suggest that she approach the chair, Chief Julian Fantino of London Police Services, to see if it will be released.

Ms Castrilli: This is really unbelievable. This morning the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said he hasn't read the report, the Solicitor General said he hasn't read the report, the Premier has said he hasn't read the report, yet the government plans to ram down this video slot machine bill. They're playing a game of "See no evil, hear no evil." They are ignoring serious police concerns about a widespread criminal element thriving in Ontario.

The minister has a secret report that uncovers a growing criminal element in Ontario's gaming industry. Will the government withdraw this video slot machine bill, a bill which will see the proliferation of some 20,000 video slot machines in bars and restaurants, until the people of Ontario have had the chance to see what the police have had to say about the new crimes that these slot machines will bring into their communities?

Hon Mr Runciman: It's a little awkward. Since the supplementary essentially deals with the VLT legislation, I'm going to refer it to the minister responsible.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all I'm going to give some credit where credit is due in this particular matter. The Gaming Control Commission, which was established in 1994 by the NDP government, gave the government, finally, some tools to deal with a previously unregulated area. In 1993, prior to the establishment of the Gaming Control Commission, there were only three charges laid in this field. In the last 12 months there have been over 300 charges laid due to the establishment of the Gaming Control Commission.

Prior to its establishment as well, there were no restrictions on who could supply supplies or services to the casino. This was done in connection with the casino and the establishment of the casino.

There were some tools given, and certainly credit where credit is due, but I strongly believe that we have to provide tighter and more provisions to supervise and monitor this area, and that's exactly where we're heading with the establishment of the charity gaming halls.

Ms Castrilli: This is a lot of gobbledegook. This minister is saying to us, and he hasn't read the report, that he is going ahead with video slot machines regardless of the consequences. He's already said that 300 charges have been laid, yet he is proceeding. They're going to push forward with this because they are so starved for cash that they don't care about the consequences on people and on communities.

I ask the minister again, how can he possibly allow the largest proliferation of gambling in Ontario's history when he has a police report in his hand saying that criminals will profit? These aren't nice people. These are criminals. How can the minister go forward with video slot machines? How can you ignore this report?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I might start by reminding the member that it was the Peterson government that brought in these three-day roving Monte Carlos. These are the unregulated types of casinos that have been causing the problem in this province. As the member knows full well, the complaint of the charities has been that at the end of a three-day casino, they have very little, if anything, left out of the proceeds of these particular types of roving casinos. The idea here is to bring in proper regulations to monitor these things closely, to make sure that charities do get the benefit of these particular casinos.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's the video slot machine that caused the problem, and you know it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Essex South, come to order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This is clearly why we're bringing in the charity gaming halls, to make sure they are regulated.

In addition, as the newspaper clipping has said, "Most of these problems could be dealt with if the provincial government would devote resources to supervision." This is clearly what we're trying to get: better and more means to supervise and to take care of this problem. In fact it was really predicated by the Liberal government.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Downsview.

Ms Castrilli: I wonder how the minister knows what the problem is when he hasn't read the report.

The Speaker: Who is your question to?

Ms Castrilli: My question is to the Solicitor General, since he was so kind as to stand up before, and it's on the same subject. The minister is, as we know, the chief law officer of the province. This morning he told reporters he hadn't read the report, a report by the OPP which concluded that criminal elements are thriving in Ontario's gaming industry.

I really have to ask the minister, where has he been? The report is over a year old, a report that deals with criminal elements in our gaming industry, yet this government is proceeding with the largest proliferation of gaming in Ontario's history and he hasn't bothered to read the report.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Ms Castrilli: Where has he been?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated in the earlier question that this was not a government report and was not a report to government. This was a report commissioned by the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario and circulated to the membership of CISO, not a government report. It wasn't made available to me; it wasn't a report to government; it was an internal report within CISO.

Ms Castrilli: This is an OPP report. The OPP is part of the minister's ministry and responsibility. I find it unbelievable that he would not know what's going on in his own ministry. If half of what we have seen in the media is true, the report is damning. It says that organized crime is flourishing in Ontario, and the Solicitor General is doing nothing. He has not even read the report.

According to media reports, the secret report calls for more money, manpower and tougher enforcement. Otherwise, it concludes, legal gambling will continue operating under a façade of honesty and integrity. This is very serious indeed.

I ask the minister, will he, as the chief law officer in the province, demand that cabinet put their plans for video slot machines on hold until the people of Ontario have a chance to see what the police have said about these crimes and these new slot machines and what the effect will be in their own communities?

Hon Mr Runciman: The report, as I said, was commissioned by CISO itself, and they do indeed have differing points of view within the policing community as well. I was given today a quote from Jim Szarka, who is the former deputy commissioner of the OPP. This is a quote from September 7, 1994, in the Kingston Whig-Standard. The former deputy commissioner of the OPP expressed this view: "You legalize this activity and you drum out that criminal element."

This was a report commissioned internally. There was a seconded police officer commissioned to carry this out for CISO. It was circulated, but if CISO indeed gave credence to this report, they haven't brought it forward to me to express grave concern related to the findings of the report.

Ms Castrilli: I really have to ask whose side this minister is on and does he really know what's going on in his own ministry. He is supposed to be the person in government concerned about law and order. Here we have a police report that talks about organized crime in a growing sector, and he hasn't bothered to read it. The Premier hasn't read it; the Minister of Community and Social Services hasn't read it. This is a conspiracy of silence. I wonder if the minister is prepared to do his job. Will he do his job as the chief law enforcement officer of the province?

Will he stop the government's plan with respect to video slot machines and will he call for an inquiry in this very serious matter? That's what we need at the moment, a public inquiry into organized crime and the gaming industry.

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated to you earlier that this was not a government report, so I'm not going to apologize for not reading a report that was not made to me or to the government.

I will certainly be contacting the chair of Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, Mr Fantino, whom I speak with on a regular basis and meet with on a regular basis, and if indeed they give a great deal of merit to this report, it hasn't been brought to my attention by Mr Fantino or other members of CISO. Certainly, I will be pursuing it with him, and if he feels that these are matters that should be given consideration, we're quite prepared to do that. But this report has been apparently available for some period of time and Chief Fantino has not brought it to my attention.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Minister of Community and Social Services -- sorry, Consumer and Commercial Relations, since he shuffled from ministries from now and then.

I want to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- because this is really quite unbelievable. You're going to bring 25,000 slot machines, video lottery terminals, into Ontario. You're going to bring them into neighbourhoods, next door to high schools and they're going to be widely available to the public. Yet there is a report by Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario which raises the issues of organized crime involvement with VLTs and you haven't read the report.

Let me ask you, Minister: Don't you think it's a good idea, as the minister responsible, that you should get hold of this report and read it and that other members of this Legislature should have a chance to read it before you proceed with bringing over 25,000 video lottery terminals into Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I do believe it is important to make sure that we listen and read what's out there and available. I'm not disagreeing with the leader of the third party. I disagree, however, before I get to that, with his characterization in terms of what the plan for video lottery terminals will be. Certainly, nowhere has anyone said they'll be proliferated through neighbourhoods. In fact, our implementation plan is quite different than how he's characterizing things. Not only have I tried to listen to a number of our caucus members in terms of the particular situation here with enforcement; I think it's very important --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I say right now that the reason why we are moving towards the charity gaming halls is to make sure that there is better enforcement, that there is better monitoring. We are looking to make better enforcement as well and to add on to what's currently there.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations can quibble about how many video lottery terminals; he can quibble about that. The point is that we're talking about organized crime here. We're talking about people who get involved in gaming and gambling activities like video lottery terminals for the purpose of laundering their money from the drug trade or from other illegal activities. That's why this is so lucrative for them.

Are you telling me that this report is irrelevant to video lottery terminals, that this report is irrelevant to organized crime and organized crime involvement with video lottery terminals? Is that what you're telling the people of Ontario, that this is all irrelevant?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I certainly didn't say that. If I could once again refer to the Globe and Mail article, it says, "Most of these problems could be dealt with if the provincial government would devote resources to supervision." It goes on to say, "`There must be an increase in [the] complement of dedicated investigators to ensure charitable gaming operations are conducted honestly,'" and that's a quote, apparently.

I agree that we should devote more resources to make sure that the grey machines are combated. It's very important to us, it's very important to members of my caucus and it's also very important for us to, once again, monitor and closely regulate the industry. This all speaks to this.

Mr Hampton: The minister stands here and says he's going to enforce and regulate, and he hasn't read the report, nor have they made the report available so that people would be able to know where the enforcement and regulations should be centred. This is absolutely unbelievable. We've got a minister of the crown here. He's got, available to the government, a very important report that has been organized and developed by Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, he hasn't bothered to read it and he won't make it available to others.

I've got a question for the minister again. On page 615 of the government phone book, under the Ministry of Solicitor General and Correctional Services it says, "Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, 9th fl 25 Grosvenor St," government telephone number 314-3050. Why don't you call them up and say that because you're interested in the impact of video lottery terminals because you care about organized crime and video lottery terminals, you want a copy of this report? Why don't you do that? Other members have tried to do that. We've been denied. As minister, why don't you do that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The leader of the third party has already had this question answered by the Solicitor General, certainly if he was listening to the question asked by the opposition. But he did ask a very good question in there, "How would I know what areas to enforce?"

Mr Hampton: Page 615, 314-3050.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I will point out one of the areas that we should enforce.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you for the reading lesson. I was just indicating that there is an area which we should enforce, and that was a question that was asked by the leader of the third party.

The leader of the third party will remember that when they introduced the Gaming Control Act they had grandfathered through all the registrants without making the proper type of investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having a great deal of difficulty hearing the minister. I would ask that all members come --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know you're having difficulty hearing that.

If the leader of the third party wants to know what areas we should enforce, one is the fact that their government grandfathered through all the registrants without making security checks on them. That has required our government to go back and make sure all the people they let go through as registrants are properly checked out. We believe it's important to have these people screened. Obviously they did not.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Page, do you want to take this over to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, so that he'll have it. It's a phone book to call the number in the government.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education. Today the Premier is quoted in the press as saying, and I can paraphrase him, "It's not our intention to ever endorse somebody breaking the law or taking away services to people."

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation released survey results this morning. It shows that hundreds of adult Ontarians are being denied their rights to a high school education, rights that are set out in the Education Act. Cutbacks by your government in the grant for adult students has forced boards of education to eliminate adult education programs. So as a result, adult students can't get the education they need to get back into the workforce.

I ask the minister, who is enforcing the Education Act in this province? Who is policing your ministry to ensure that you obey the Education Act and you provide the services that you are supposed to?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the leader of the third party for the question. His allegations are simply wrong. This government has done more to support adult education over the last year than the previous government did in five years. Finally, for the first time in this province, we have expanded the general educational development testing program which allows adults to get high school certification when they have prior learning that equals that level of accreditation.

I doubt that there's any single person in the province of Ontario who would not understand, and surely the leader of the third party would be included in that group, that there is a difference between adult education and adolescent education and surely we should have our programs designed for the specific needs of adult education and that is what we have done. We are certainly in compliance with the Education Act.

Mr Hampton: I'm talking about the act. The act happens to be the law in Ontario. I'm not talking about what the minister's spin doctors may be telling him for the day. I'm talking about the law and the law says that people are entitled to a high school education and this minister has made cuts so that there are all kinds of adults in the province who can no longer get that high school education as they want to get back into the workforce.

The OSSTF found that of almost 8,000 adult students surveyed last spring, 2,800 had been told that their required course would no longer be available this fall and almost two thirds of them were not offered any alternative to complete their course of study. So I want to say to the minister, your government is taking away from people in need. You're taking away from people who want to get back into the education system, who want to get high school credits so they can get a job. You're taking that away from them.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Hampton: You can't blame the situation at the doors of the boards of education. You cut the grants for adult students.

What are you going to do to ensure that adults are receiving the education to which they are entitled by Ontario law? What are you going to do to make sure that the law is observed?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the member opposite, as I just have, that the law is not being violated or broken in the province of Ontario. I can tell him this, that there is a significant difference in delivering adult education and adolescent education. There are some people who would like to have the same programs that were designed for adolescents be applied to adults. I don't think that's logical, I don't think that makes sense and I don't think that meets the needs of adults.

I'm proud of this government's record and I'm proud of the fact that unlike the member opposite's government, we have allowed adults across this province the opportunity to get GED approval like everyone else in every other province and every state in North America. Finally we've joined the group.

Mr Hampton: Once again we've got the Conservative spin doctors. Let me tell the minister, we know what's happened. You cut adult education so you could fund a tax break for your wealthy friends. That's what's happened.

Let me tell you who you're leaving behind. Of the adult students who have been eliminated, 63% are women trying to get back into the workforce. Many are people with physical disabilities who want to get adult education so they can get a job. Those are the people you're cutting in order that you can give your wealthy friends a tax break.

Of the students surveyed, 48% are either on unemployment insurance or have been forced on to social assistance. They want to get off. What you're doing is making sure they stay unemployed. You're making sure they're forced on to social assistance. What are you going to do to observe the law? What are you going to do to ensure that people who want to get a job, who want to get back into the workforce, get the education they're entitled to by the Education Act?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me assure the leader of the third party one more time that the law is being met in the province of Ontario. Let me also assure him that this government will not try to supply adult education in one model designed for adolescents. We are going to provide, and we are providing, adults with many opportunities tailored to their needs.

As to the question that the honourable member has suggested about the cost of education, about the affordability of education, the honourable member's party was willing to pass the bill for education on to the children of this province. This government will not.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Solicitor General. Clearly the Harris government has made a very significant error in proceeding with 20,000 video lottery terminals in Ontario without looking at an extremely important report. I know from being in this House that the present Treasurer and the Premier and so on were very much opposed to an expansion of gambling in this province. They had good reason to be opposed to that. One of the reasons could be what is contained in this report.

As the chief law officer of the crown, as the chief police officer in the province of Ontario, can you tell us why, when you knew this report existed, you would not apprise yourself of the contents of this report so that you could share with members of the cabinet any concerns you might have about gambling activities in this province and caution them against proceeding with the implementation of 20,000 VLTs in bars and restaurants in every neighbourhood in Ontario?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I indicated earlier that this is an operational intelligence document. It contains very sensitive intelligence information. These reports can identify very specific targets and individuals, and they are traditionally not circulated outside the law enforcement community. That is standard practice. It was standard practice when the Liberals were in power. It was standard practice when the NDP were in government. This hasn't changed. They were not released under previous governments. That's the standard practice. But I'm certainly prepared to talk to Chief Fantino. It is a CISO report.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You can get a briefing. What are you doing out there?

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

Hon Mr Runciman: It is not a government report. If Chief Fantino and the board of CISO are prepared to release this publicly, given the fact that apparently there is a copy in the hands of the media, I will be supportive of that. But it is not my report to release

Mr Bradley: I find it difficult to believe that an individual who pursued issues of policing and justice so vigorously -- and I commend you -- when you were in opposition and demanded extremely high standards of others in this House would stand before this House today and wash your hands of this particular problem and say that report isn't yours. I'm surprised as well that you would not report to the House that Clare Lewis, the chair of the Gaming Control Commission of Ontario, wouldn't have this report available to him.

Minister, with the revelations that have come forward, do you not believe now that you should ask the Premier to call for a full public inquiry into gambling activities in Ontario and that you should ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to withdraw his bill allowing video slot machines in virtually every neighbourhood in this province until such time as you're satisfied that the air has been cleared in all allegations related to gambling in this province?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've certainly taken strong positions on justice issues in the past and I continue to do that. With respect to this particular matter, as I indicated, I've met with Chief Fantino and other members of the CISO board on a number of occasions since taking over this office. If this was such a strong concern, we have not spoken about specific concerns about VLT legislation.

This member indicates to me that they put in roving Monte Carlos. We are moving to institute much stricter regulations of that kind of gambling in this province. The Treasurer has indicated that we're going to put the necessary resources into this area to ensure that appropriate policing is carried out. We are moving on these issues.

I can't speak to the specifics of this report. It's a CISO report. I have not read it, but I've indicated to the member today that I'm quite prepared to talk to Chief Fantino about releasing it. He may be quite prepared, his colleagues in CISO may be quite prepared --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: One of the things that I think CISO is very proud of is its arm's length from government, its independence.

Again, we hear on a regular basis, if there's any question about this government or this minister interfering in operational matters of police, they're very quick to condemn me or condemn this government, and now they're encouraging me to be involved in operational matters.

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

AUTO INDUSTRY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Your colleague the member for Durham East was quoted yesterday in his statements endorsing the General Motors position of outsourcing and pay reductions as saying the following: "I realize GM has to outsource. Is it better to have 100 jobs at $24 an hour or 200 jobs at $12 an hour? Full employment is the ideal state." Do you agree with that industrial strategy and position taken by your colleague?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Naturally, like all members in the House today I'm very concerned about the situation in Oshawa with the strike. That is a very important employer for Ontario labour. As a matter of fact, the automotive industry is our most important job creator, and also from a dollars point of view our biggest export. So we're very concerned about what's going on down there and I hope there's going to be a very timely resolution of the situation. We're watching it very closely and we're very concerned.

Mr Cooke: I'd like to ask the minister again, is he prepared here today in the House to say that he will not endorse the statement by his colleague from Oshawa, from Durham East?

Secondly, would he not agree with this caucus that when you have a corporation like General Motors that made $1.4 billion last year, the largest profit rate of any corporation in the history of this country, a corporation that already has many more of its parts outsourced than its parent corporation in the United States, would the minister not play a more constructive role in here today and say to General Motors that it's time to be a good corporate citizen and settle the strike at the bargaining table and be fair to the workers that have made that $1.4 billion in profit?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Mr Speaker, before answering the question I want to congratulate you -- I did not have a chance to do it earlier -- on your appointment as Speaker. I'm sure you'll bring honour to the job, and I'm looking forward to working with you.

I want the member to be aware that what we're creating in this province is a province of opportunity.

Mr Cooke: Low-wage.

Hon Mr Saunderson: No, we're not. We have very good economic programs. Since we have taken office there have been 150,000 jobs created in this province, and we're very proud of that.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Tell me what he can prove. You have a tax cut for the wealthy.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm quite convinced that our policies are making this happen in this province.

As for interfering with the situation in Oshawa, we have no intention of doing that. We're quite confident that there will be a peaceful resolution to this and that Ontario will go on being the engine of growth in this country it has now become.

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Mr Speaker, my congratulations to you. I've noticed that my seat up here is a little cooler than the one you're sitting in today.

I would like to put this question to the Minister responsible for seniors, a question I find quite important actually. In Ontario today, between 80,000 and 100,000 people have Alzheimer disease or related dementia. Currently 90% of the care in the community for people with this disease is provided by the family caregivers in their homes.

However, such care of course, as you know, comes very high. It's a high cost for providers. There's the extra burden of paying for respite, and for medical and legal services as well. There's the ongoing physical, mental and emotional stress of providing around-the-clock care to a loved one who at times cannot even recognize the member of the family. I would like to know what reassurance you can give seniors that the government will help support families in these straits.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Wentworth East for his question. I want to indicate to him that the province of Ontario will be providing leadership in this important area. My colleague the Minister of Health attended a meeting in Fredericton of provincial, federal and territorial ministers of health responsible for seniors. They discussed the issue of Alzheimer's research and coordination, and it was found that we lack an integrated framework and a structure for this disease in terms of public policy.

I'm pleased that Ontario stepped forward to show leadership in this important area. We've begun partnerships with the Alzheimer Association of Ontario and are working cooperatively with support families, caregivers, professionals and people afflicted by this terrible disease.

The work has begun. My colleague Helen Johns, who's the Minister of Health's parliamentary assistant, has already begun discussions and consultations. A report will be ready within a couple of weeks. But this government is very much committed to a coordinated, integrated program for Alzheimer's.

Mr Doyle: Much has been said in recent days about restructuring health care, shifting money away from bricks and mortar and directing it to front-line health service. The opposition parties have expressed concern that more funds are being taken out of the system than are being put back into community health services. How do we know that this government will provide the resources to build the kind of services that you've described for families and people with Alzheimer's?

Hon Mr Jackson: This government is very committed to cost-effective, innovative health care reform for Ontarians, especially as it relates to senior citizens, and that's why we are working so cooperatively with the Alzheimer Association of Ontario with this integrated strategy. I had a recent meeting with John Ellis, its executive director, and he was expressing genuine appreciation for the renewed efforts that this government is making in terms of pilot projects, as well as actual projects that were being announced.

He referred to a front-line service that our government announced this week, an investment of $3.2 million in capital to build a supportive housing complex in Elliot Lake. This will provide the housing for 38 frail elderly and onsite services for many more seniors to lead independent lives. It will also have a specialized program for 12 Alzheimer residents.

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

Hon Mr Jackson: This is cost-effective and is community-driven health care for seniors, something this government and this Minister of Health are committed to and that the seniors in this province deserve.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since you've become responsible for video slot machines in this province, the Legislature and the standing committee on administration of justice have not heard how you feel. I know you to be an honourable and honest person. I'd like to know today, do you favour the introduction of video slot machines in the province of Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I've said before that I guess I have policies and not personal opinions any more. The people over there have a lot of personal opinions.

We're reacting right now to a request and a demand by charities and certainly by the hospitality trade and racetracks to have an opportunity to bolster the hospitality trade, to assist charities as well. It's clear that there is a request from the community out there to participate.

Mr Crozier: There's an equal if not greater request that you not introduce slot machines in the province of Ontario. We've heard today and yesterday of a report that exists that will tell you that if you legalize these machines -- the criminal element in the province of Ontario is simply waiting patiently for you to do it because it's going to be of benefit to them.

We've heard you stand there and say, "If I see no evil or hear no evil, I don't have to speak any evil." Will you please get together with the Solicitor General and ask that at the very least cabinet be given a briefing, and then, from what you hear in that report --

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

Mr Crozier: -- if it's appropriate, will you consider withdrawing or delaying the introduction of your bill till an inquiry can be held into criminal elements in gambling in the province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I find it a little peculiar that this particular member is asking what he's asking right now. If I might refer to the Windsor Star on May 24, 1996, it indicates: "Crozier says he supports redevelopment for Boblo, including a casino." In reaction to Mr Maris, who was the NDP candidate and who said that the Liberals opposed the gaming house, Mr Crozier said, "This is totally untrue."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Continue, Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Because I was drowned out, I just want to finish this. In reaction to a campaign flyer back in the election with Mr Maris, Mr Crozier denied the fact that the Liberals opposed gaming houses. He said that was untrue. Which is it? It's kind of like another flip-flop again.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You can't be allowed to misrepresent opinions. You're putting them in every bar and restaurant --

The Speaker: Point of privilege? Order, the member for St Catharines. If you want a point of privilege, I'll take it up after question period. That's the most appropriate time.

Next question, please; leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have another question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, because what's happening here today is unbelievable. The minister would know that last night on a nationally televised news program, W Five, the CTV television network raised the issue, their concern over the involvement of organized crime in video lottery terminals.

The Treasurer, the Minister of Finance -- March 24, 1996, Toronto Sun -- said, "Lots of other provinces have introduced VLTs and lots of other provinces have problems with VLTs."

University of Ottawa criminologist Ross Hastings says, "The upper echelons of organized crime are not losing any sleep over the government's decision to legalize the video lottery terminals." He goes on to say, "Legal gambling could be a way for illegal gamblers to launder their money." Everybody else around you is raising Caution signs. They're saying this is not the way to go.

The Speaker: The question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Don't you think you should ask for a copy of this report and read it and make it available?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly I've said before that it's very important for us to bring in the proper regulatory means to monitor and control this industry. I've also said that it's very important for us to make sure we have better resources to deal with this particular problem.

I remind the members over there, because they're saying that we are somehow proliferating gambling, that when they introduced the casino, in connection to questioning their motivations at that time, the minister then was Marilyn Churley, who said: "Pick up the phone and call Premier Filmon of Manitoba. Tell him the three casinos his government owns are fronts for the mob. Tell Premier Bourassa that he is about to become some undercover ringleader." This is what Ms Churley indicated in connection with and in response to people who opposed Bill 8.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This guy's a joke. He's a joke.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma, come to order. Supplementary, the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: We know the conundrum the government has got. They've given a big tax break to their wealthy friends and now they've got to find a way to get that money. They don't care if it involves organized crime. They don't care about organized crime in VLTs.

Let me try again. I want to quote from the report of the Fredericton criminal intelligence unit, the Fredericton Police Force. This is what they say: "The issue of slot machine, one-armed bandit and poker machine gambling has long been known to be associated with organized crime. In recent years confirmed intelligence reports have linked video lottery gambling and the purchasing of the devices to organized crime."

Minister, how many criminologists, how many police forces have to speak up? Why won't you get a copy of this report? Why won't you hold off introducing third reading of the bill until you've done the responsible thing, got a copy of the report and read it?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Certainly part of what we have to do in our implementation strategy is address this particular problem.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): If you don't read your report --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): What's he got, a crystal ball?

The Speaker: The members for Cochrane South and Hamilton Centre, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: For example, by combining in Bill 75 the functions of the LLBO and the GCC into one regulatory function, we bring on more inspectors to direct towards this problem.

Clearly we have a commitment to tighten up the regulations and try to enforce this a lot better than has been done over the last 10 years.

GROW ONTARIO

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The Grow Ontario program was announced as part of the budget in 1996. This $15-million initiative focuses on market development, research and technology transfer, rural economic development and investment attraction. Minister, how many proposals have you received and how are you selecting which proposals to fund?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Mr Speaker, congratulations on your ascension to this very famous throne.

To the honourable member for Halton North, I know his concerns regarding the agricultural community and I appreciate that. I'm very pleased to report that this $15-million Grow Ontario program has been very well received by the rural agrifood community of the province of Ontario.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): the VLTs are obviously well received by the mob.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm going to warn the member for Algoma to come to order; it's just that simple. I'm having a very difficult time hearing the minister.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The farming community now has over 50 applications. We now have a panel of six independent agrifood sector people involved in assessing the applications that are in place and we anticipate that by the middle of next month we will have a number of contracts which will have been issued and we will be proceeding with this very positive, new money to the agrifood producers of the province of Ontario.

Mr Chudleigh: Minister, thank you very much for the update. Until when can applications be submitted and what are the primary requirements for the applicants?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The next deadline for the Grow Ontario program will be November 1 and the following one will be on January 1. We certainly encourage investment in agriculture because presently we export $4.8 billion from Ontario in the agrifood sector. This program will assist us in going close to doubling that amount of exports of agrifood products to the world within the next five years. I want to simply add that the $20 million that's been eartagged towards the provincial sales tax rebate on capital improvements has been oversubscribed. That's how well received $35 million of new money to agriculture has happened. So I am very proud to bring good news to my colleagues.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Today Ian Ricci, who is a 17-year-old student from Carleton Place High School, came all the way into town and held a press conference to talk about his concern about education at his particular school. For Ian and his classmates, portable classrooms in need of repair, inadequate space for technical studies, a building that's inaccessible to the disabled, a library that does not meet the space requirements of the ministry, inadequate guidance and office space, inadequate cafeteria facilities requiring students to start their lunch at 10:10 in the morning --

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

Mr Patten: Minister, you've taken hundreds of millions of dollars out of the education system. Can you now see that your decision to take this money out is impacting in a negative manner on schools like Carleton Place High School?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for the question. I had the pleasure of meeting the student he just referred to a little while before question period and I can certainly assure the member opposite that it was a very nice experience for me; certainly an articulate young man.

As to the question from the member, I'm glad that he shares my concern and our government's concern for the condition of some of the capital structure of the schools in Ontario. During the previous Liberal government, during the last government's tenure, over that course of 10 years, the number of portables, and I know the member mentioned this, in Ontario grew by almost 8,000, almost 8,000 additional portables --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- in our school system in that time of your government being in power and your government being in power.

What was the answer of the previous governments? To drive up the debt they load on our students and to announce projects for which there was no funding. That was the response. We have taken the approach of having a new look at capital construction so we can meet the past demand designed by your government and your government, sir.

Mr Patten: I would like to pass over a videotape that was filmed and created by Ian and some other students at his school. You'll see for yourself, not just hear about it at second hand, the condition of this particular school. One of the reasons they've not been able to bring it up to standard as required by the Ministry of Education is because of the freeze, and you keep saying that you are not touching the classroom. This young man is saying you are touching the classroom, his education and his colleagues in that particular school, and I venture to say it's not the only one.

Will you agree today that the freeze will only be for this year or will be taken off immediately, and will you make sure that the schools that are in the same kind of situation will have the opportunity to come up to the standards of your ministry?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the member opposite that we are currently, as we have said to the people of Ontario and as we promised them, doing a very senior consulting project with the ECS on what are the alternatives for capital construction of schools in the province of Ontario, looking at what other jurisdictions are doing, so that when we exit the moratorium, and I can assure the member opposite that we will, we will do so with a plan to help erase the backlog of capital neglect that has been visited upon our students and our schools over the last 10 years. It's a monumental task, but we will address it and we will solve it.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd just like to take this quick opportunity to introduce the guests, to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a Cuban delegation accompanied by His Excellency Bienvenido Garcia Negrin, ambassador of the Republic of Cuba to Canada, and Mr José Garcia, consul general. Welcome.

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I know he was here earlier and the

schedule says that he's supposed to be here.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You've got the choice of asking the question of other ones or standing it down.

Mr Silipo: I will put it to him if he's here. If not, I will put it to someone else.

The Speaker: I don't see him.

Mr Silipo: What do you wish me to do?

The Speaker: You have the choice of either referring it to another minister or standing it down. I doubt we'll get to it today if you stand it down, so I suggest --

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's right, and as I suggest not standing it down, the minister walks in.

Mr Silipo: Minister, as you may know, the Sierra Club of Eastern Canada this morning held a press conference in which they stated that proposals in a document that was released by your predecessor, Responsive Environmental Protection, would allow acid rain emissions in Metro Toronto to double. That's because you are in the process of getting rid of a regulation that goes back to the time of Bill Davis, regulation 361, which now limits the sulphur content of the most widely used heating and industrial boiler oil and fuel oil used in Metro by, I gather, among others, some 75,000 to 100,000 homes. This will double, quite simply, the amount of acid rain emissions.

I just want to ask you very briefly, why would your government proceed and why would you, as somebody who calls himself a minister in favour of the environment, proceed with such a regulation that would allow twice the amount of acid rain in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm glad the question was asked and I truly thank the member for asking it because I want to clarify the situation. The report that was written talked about these two particular regulations. It's a very complex situation, but I want to give the member my word, and members of the Legislature this word, that this minister will not increase any of the standards which are located in either of those regulations. So the net effect with regard to these two regulations will, at the very least, be as good as the combination of the two or better.

Mr Silipo: I want to be really clear and I want the minister to be clear that what he's saying is that he's going to review the situation to ensure that, in effect, this regulation does not proceed. If it does, and if you change it to the other regulation that applies for the province, it's our understanding that in fact that does increase the amount of sulphur dioxide that's allowed to be emitted, and that is the basic problem, Minister.

What we need from you and what people out there need from you is to hear that you're going to review the situation and leave in place this regulation which right now controls at least to some reasonable level the amount of acid-rain-causing sulphur dioxide emissions.

Hon Mr Sterling: I want to make it clear to the member that part of the confusion was caused by the way this particular document was written. Therefore I want to make it clear to you and to the Sierra Club, who I will be glad to meet with -- they asked to meet with me, and I will be happy to meet with them and talk about this issue -- that there are two regulations with regard to sulphur dioxide emissions, one covering the greater Toronto area and one covering the rest of Ontario. It's my intention to have the same sulphur dioxide emission tests or standards for all of Ontario but that they be to the lowest common denominator.

The misunderstanding by the Sierra Club and by several writers with regard to this issue is well understood by me because the document written by the ministry was misleading and misrepresented the issue. As I've said to you before --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: -- the bottom line is that none of the sulphur dioxide allowances will be increased.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 34(a), I wish to advise you I'm not satisfied with the response to my oral question from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and it's my intention to raise the subject matter of the question at the adjournment of the House tomorrow night.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): If you file the proper papers, it will happen.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): This is a motion pursuant to discussions we've had with regard to the Deputy Speaker's position and agreed upon by all parties.

That notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 3, 1995, Mr Morin, member for the electoral district of Carleton East, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the committee of the whole House; that Ms Churley, member for the electoral district of Riverdale, be appointed First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House; and that Mr Johnson, member for the electoral district of Perth, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Any debate?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): With regard to the motion, the government House leader is correct and we are in full agreement with the motion. I just wanted to make the point that while the motion does not talk about dates, our understanding is that this will remain in effect for one year and that subsequently there will be a further rotation and Ms Churley, the member for the electoral district of Riverdale, will be moved to Deputy Speaker.

Hon David Johnson: Just to respond to that, that is also my understanding, to put that in the record, that in fact this would be for a period of one year and Ms Churley would then assume the Deputy Speaker's position, or whoever was representative from the third party.

The Speaker: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I've affixed my signature.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the Union of Veterans Affairs Employees in Ottawa; Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, Don Mills; Humber College employees, and SEIU, Local 528, Mississauga:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I continue to support those workers, and I add my name to theirs.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I have with me a petition signed by several members from my riding:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas convicted first-degree murderers are allowed to apply to the court for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period; and

"Whereas victims' families must relive the horrors of the original crime through a jury hearing for this early parole and relive this every time the killer is given hearings for early parole; and

"Whereas the provincial government must bear a large degree of the costs involved with a jury hearing;

"We, the undersigned, ask the Attorney General of Ontario to request the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to reconsider his decision under Bill C-45 and to repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada."

I affix my signature.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which I wish to read:

"Whereas the government is intent on cutting educational funding so that children are denied their basic right to quality education; and

"Whereas the government cuts to day care facilities restrict parents' access to affordable and decent child care programs within the province; and

"Whereas the Harris government is intent on abolishing rent control and the rent-geared-to-income program, which provide decent housing for low- and middle-income tenants consisting of 40% seniors, 42% families and 18% special needs and disabled tenants; and

"Whereas the government has introduced user fees on basic necessities such as prescription medication for seniors, textbooks for school children and essential services like firefighting and policing; and

"Whereas the cuts to services will impact upon everything from public transit to borrowing library books; and

"Whereas the government has seen fit to abandon job training programs and failed to create a formal job strategy for the province despite continually high unemployment;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Mike Harris government to live up to their promises of protecting rent control, not introducing user fees, and creating the over 725,000 jobs which he promised."

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is a petition to the government of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Atikokan and surrounding areas, petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"To reopen and keep open the MNR fire base at Nym Lake;

"Whereas the town of Atikokan is surrounded by forested lands and is dependent upon a quick response by Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews at the outbreak of forest fires in order to ensure the safety of our community and other dwellings and vested interests in the area, as well as to maintain our livelihoods made largely possible by our forest resources."

I agree with this petition and I have affixed my signature to it.

QUEENSWAY GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Today I wish to present a petition to the Legislature. It's on a subject that's dear to your heart and mine, Mr Speaker. The petition is against the closure of Queensway General Hospital. The

preamble reads:

"As a community member who depends on Queensway General Hospital for health care services, I am very concerned about the rumour of possible closure published in the August 13, 1996 edition of the Toronto Star.

"I need my community hospital. I am very opposed to having it closed."

The point that I'd like to make here is that this is not a political group; this is a group that very quietly went about collecting these signatures. They realize it's a rumour, but they're very concerned nevertheless. They took the petition to the mayor of Etobicoke and I was able to retrieve it from him. The interesting point is there are 20,541 signatures and I think that's very significant. I'd like to affix my signature to it in support.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I've been standing up here from the very beginning today, Mr Speaker. I'm very much afraid the clock will run out, and my residents are waiting for this petition.

The Speaker: Although, the member for Parkdale, you may be the only one who considers that a point of order, it just isn't a point of order and I'm just going in rotation. The member for Scarborough North next, please.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you for your fairness and your consistency, Mr Speaker.

I have a petition from Sault Ste Marie, a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster eviction by landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

Hundreds have signed their names to this petition and I will affix mine in agreement.

BEAR HUNTING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas over 70% of the orphaned bears do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of bait and dogs in all bear-hunting activities."

This petition is signed by 339 people who live in North Bay and Sudbury, and I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition here to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear-hunting activities."

This is signed by 466 people and I affix my signature.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition to the government of Ontario:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery; and

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for so many years to come; and

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income; and

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have thousands of petitions, further petitions actually, from members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1008 submitted to me by their president Dan Gilbert and their union representative Pearl MacKay. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the proposed changes to workers' compensation in Ontario, including the elimination of the current bipartite board of directors, the reduction of temporary benefits from 90% to 85%, the introduction of an unpaid waiting period for compensation benefits, legislated limits on entitlement, including repetitive strain, chronic pain and stress claims, reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements. Workers' compensation is not a handout. It is a legal obligation that the employers of this province have to workers in Ontario.

"We, therefore, demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent accidents, no reduction in current staff levels at the WCB, and continued support for the bipartite board structure."

I add my name to theirs in support.

SCHOOL PRAYERS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have a petition here to reinstate the repeating of the Lord's Prayer in our elementary and secondary schools:

"Canada was founded on Christian-Judaeo principles. While the multicultural mosaic of our nation is clearly recognized and celebrated, we, the undersigned citizens concerned about the lack of religious content within the public education system, implore the government of Ontario to give serious consideration to the return of the Lord's Prayer in the classrooms of our schools. Since the content of the prayer should not be offensive to any religious tradition or nationality, the intent is not to impose one particular belief but rather to maintain the foundations upon which our country was founded."

In my community we now have 700 signatures on this.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): This petition is addressed to the government of Ontario:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse, and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery; and

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come; and

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across the province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income tax to the greatest benefit of those with the highest incomes; and

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since the Premier and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province of Ontario."

I have signed that petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Patten from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 76,

An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation in the Environmental Assessment Act / Projet de loi 76, Loi visant à améliorer la protection de l'environnement, à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes et à intégrer la consultation publique à la

Loi sur les évaluations environnementales.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 76 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 20th report.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Does the Chair wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): It's simply a report of the committee meeting on government agencies that was held this morning, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

Mr Crozier moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act / Projet de loi 83, Loi de 1996 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur.

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

Do you have any statements, member for Essex South?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Just a brief one. The purpose of this bill is to extend the scope of protection provided to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act to include protection from the practice of negative billing with respect to the provision of services.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

Mr David Johnson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 81,

An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts and to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à réduire le nombre des députés à l'Assemblée législative en rendant identiques le nombre et les limites des circonscriptions électorales provinciales et fédérales et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à des lois concernant la représentation électorale.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): It's a pleasure for me to say a few words about Bill 81 this afternoon. Bill 81, I guess, as one can infer from the title, the Fewer Politicians Act, is one that will reduce the number of ridings in the province of Ontario from 130 down to 103.

I hope that over the course of this discussion we can demonstrate, number one, that this was a commitment that was made in the last election, even before the last election -- the party now forming the government made a commitment to the people of Ontario to pursue this course of action; secondly, that we hope to accomplish in passing this bill that the electoral situation, that the riding situation will be more understandable, that there will be a higher level of accountability in government; thirdly, that to us this is a form of leadership, because we are asking the civil service to do better with less, many in Ontario in the private sector have had to do better with less, and we feel, as members of the government, that the government should also do better with less and that this will lead to not only a cost reduction but a more efficient and effective government.

The roots of this suggestion, I might say, came almost three years ago, and that was before the party which now forms the government released the Common Sense Revolution. During that period of time there was a great deal of consultation with people all across the province of Ontario about what in general was needed to restore hope and opportunity and prosperity to Ontario. The comments that were received at that time from residents all across Ontario have guided this government since the election on June 8 of last year and will continue to guide us in the future.

The people of Ontario, I might say, I'm sure are telling people on both sides of this House, hardworking people of the province of Ontario, that they wanted a government which would provide that leadership, that leadership in having a better government, a government that displays a commitment to its goals and its plans. On too many occasions in the past, governments have laid out goals and plans before an election but then they have not pursued them; they have let them go. People don't want to see that. They want a government that shows fiscal responsibility in achieving their goals. Ontarians also want a government that is understandable and approachable and which works.

These were the kind of attributes that we heard from the people of the province of Ontario. They also told us that governments lacked accountability, that taxes were too high, that spending was too high and indeed was out of control. Government was too big and government was too costly. Many people, I might say, were tired of footing the bill for governments that would not listen or respond to the needs and concerns of the average people, the grass-roots people of the province of Ontario.

Now, how to address this? Will adding more politicians address this? Will adding more programs, will spending more money address these concerns of the people of the province of Ontario? I'm sure that unanimously in this House we would say no, that adding more politicians, adding more costs will not address the concerns that people have expressed.

Two years ago this party now forming the government promised a smaller province from an elected point of view, a more efficient and a more affordable government at all levels, a better and more open government. That's what we are trying to deliver. That's what I feel we can deliver as part of our program through the Fewer Politicians Act. We're making good on that promise. We're living up to our commitment.

I would say that this is another step to reducing the size and the cost of the government, to do better with less. I think the people of the province of Ontario have heard the motto of this government -- to do better with less -- and that's what this is all about. We will reduce the size of the government for the first time since 1933, and it has been done before. It was done in 1933, when at that time the Legislature was reduced from 112 seats down to 90. If one works that out, as I'm sure the opposition parties are doing mentally, that's about a 20% reduction in the number of seats, which is almost precisely what we're proposing through this bill today, about a 20% reduction.

In 1933 the politicians were concerned about the reduction from 112 to 90 seats. Some of them said it would not work. Some of them said that 90 politicians were not enough to run the province of Ontario, that Ontario couldn't possibly succeed. But nevertheless, the Legislature at that time had the foresight to go ahead, put that into effect. What happened since 1933? What happened in the years after 1933?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The population grew.

Hon David Johnson: The population grew, but in addition to that, we went through the most prosperous times for many years in the province of Ontario. I think we would all agree that the prosperity enjoyed and the standard of living in the province of Ontario was second to none. This was done with a base of 90 members. Fewer MPPs, I might say, also means fewer salaries, fewer staff members. We estimate that through this process over $11 million will be directly saved, and added savings, I will say, over the next several years will also be saved in regard to adjustments to other factors, factors such as, of course, office space, telephone and computer systems etc.

Now to be fair, we're not cutting --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): He's cutting my job. There'll be no one to represent the people of Lake Nipigon.

Hon David Johnson: We're not cutting anybody's job, to the member opposite, in the sense that no members will lose their seat before the next election. That would not be fair, because the people did vote them in. These changes, of course, will take effect after the next election is called.

However, we're not introducing this legislation primarily to save money. The important part here is that by harmonizing our boundaries with the federal government we will reduce the complexity of the existing political system and make the system more transparent, more accountable and more understandable to the people of the province of Ontario.

For example, in the south end of my riding, in a portion of East York, some of the residents live in one federal riding, Don Valley East, and some live in another riding, Beaches-Woodbine. There is always confusion, because the same people who live in one provincial riding, and right across the street from one another, live in two federal ridings. This involves confusion. There are allegiances etc which develop, and they're broken by this confusion. Clarity, simplicity and a more understandable and more workable system for the people of Ontario, whom we are elected to serve, are important to us, the most important part of this bill.

I might also say that aligning the provincial boundaries with the new federal ridings will help eliminate not only the overlap but the duplication in areas of staffing associated with the elections -- one set of staff at the federal level and another set of staff at the provincial level. Hopefully, in working with the federal government -- and I understand that the federal government is very sincere and interested in working with the provincial government in this respect -- we will be able to combine and have one less bureaucracy.

Perhaps the federal government would administer the elections and we would contract. Perhaps the provincial government would look after the elections and we would be able to contract services to the federal government. This could be a further saving of some $2 million.

Reducing the number of provincial politicians sends a strong signal to the voters, the people of Ontario, the taxpayers, that this government is prepared to establish leadership, to start from the top. We are not asking the people to foot the burden or the civil service to foot the burden; we are showing leadership in saying that we are prepared to reduce our own ranks, to do better with less, to become more efficient. I believe we can be more effective.

This step, together with others we've taken since we took office over a year ago, means that the restraint will be shouldered from the highest level here at Queen's Park right on down. It proves that this government is not afraid of taking the tough decisions.

Mr Pouliot: How much did you pay to rent that trailer?

Hon David Johnson: Referring to that trailer, Premier Harris has indicated that there is no such thing as "my riding." Each of us in this House should not look on a riding as our riding; the ridings belong to the people of Ontario, not to the politicians. I believe that at the end of this debate we will all say that the ridings belong to the people. The concern should not necessarily be for the future of the politicians. I may lose my riding, but it isn't my riding; it belongs to the people. I'm privileged to represent the people during this term.

Mr Pouliot: And very lucky.

Hon David Johnson: Very lucky and very privileged and very honoured. But if people have a different view next time, then so be it. We will all run in the next election, whether we're from the governing party, the official opposition or the third party. Many independent candidates run. It will be a challenge with only 103 ridings as opposed to 130, but that's not what this is about. This whole issue is about accountability, establishing the leadership and making the situation clear and more understandable to the people of Ontario.

Reducing the number of MPPs by 20% will set the example of cost cutting for other levels of government, the agencies and the ministries, because we know we need the cooperation of all the ministries and the agencies to achieve a government that is sustainable and affordable.

All regions across the province will benefit from this new plan. We recognize, however, that northern Ontario is unique. Representation is based on population and the northern Ontario ridings will have smaller populations than the ridings in southern Ontario. We recognize that situation.

I just want to say in summation, because I don't intend to take much time today, that I'm interested in the comments of members from all parties, all sides of the House. I believe the independent member will also be speaking on this issue, is most interested in this issue. I'm anxious to hear the views all the way around.

I will point out that in doing better for less this is another aspect of our program. We eliminated the hidden tax-free allowances of the MPPs. We scrapped the gold-plated pension plans of the MPPs. The Premier has appointed the smallest cabinet in over 30 years in this House. We've cut the administrative costs of government by some $200 million to this point. Another $80 million has been taken out of the agencies, boards and commissions to make them run more efficiently. Of course, we are downsizing the civil service to have a more efficient and effective government. This bill furthers that particular overall program of this government.

We are living up to our commitments through this bill. We're showing leadership. Most importantly, we are establishing riding boundaries which I believe will lead to clearer, more effective, more efficient, more understandable and more workable government for the average people in the province of Ontario.

I encourage all members of the House to support this legislation and I anxiously await the rest of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions and comments?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I listened very carefully to the government House leader's remarks with regard to this legislation. I want to make a couple of comments. He said that he was concerned about the people, that they are the people's ridings. Obviously all of us agree with that, but if he is so concerned about the people, why is the government so unwilling to ask the people what they think about the boundaries? Why are we not doing what has been done in every other redistribution in this province since the 1960s?

The government House leader said that there was confusion about boundaries of ridings people live in. In my area just about everybody in Algoma district knows they're in Algoma riding. Where they get confused is what federal riding they're in. They're not confused about what provincial riding they're in.

In northern Ontario just relying on the federal boundaries is basically accepting a breaking of a promise by the federal Liberals to northern Ontario where they said there would be a minimum of 11 seats in northern Ontario. You are compounding that by doing the same provincially.

The federal Liberals broke a promise to northern Ontario that there would be a minimum of 11 seats in that part of the province and are lowering it with this redistribution, and this government provincially is moving from 15 to 10. You are going to reduce the amount of representation in northern Ontario, and in so doing are going to expand the ridings so that one riding, Kenora-Rainy River, will cover one third of the land mass of this province. Every other redistribution has taken into account rep by pop, one person, one vote, but also distances and geography.

You are depending on the feds to make that decision, the federal government hasn't done it in northern Ontario, and you're just copying them.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This is probably, colleague to colleague in this chamber, one of the most difficult pieces of legislation we will deal with. When we come to this place it's perfectly true that we all stand here and talk about "my riding." I talk about my riding of Mississauga South, and every one of us in this place naturally is parochial about their ridings.

The other thing that is very difficult about this legislation is that we know we have 130 members in this place today, we have until the next election and then we are going to have 103. We're very sensitive. I'm sensitive about the fact that in my own caucus there will be members seeking nominations in one riding

whereas presently they may represent two adjacent ridings. None of this is easy in terms of our c