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

May 5, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L185 - Mon 5 May 1997 / Lun 5 Mai 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

JOE BARANYK

RESCUE MISSION

USER FEES

CANADA GAMES

EDUCATION WEEK

STUDENT CONFERENCE

PUBLIC HOUSING

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

CHILD CARE

HOSPITAL FINANCING

PROPERTY TAXATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

PROPERTY TAXATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

HIGHWAY 407

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

PETITIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

NURSING STAFF

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARDS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This past Friday the Health Services Restructuring Commission bolted through Sudbury once again, this time to hand out the final directives on hospital governance. Although they haven't got it right yet, the community understands that it's as good as they're going to get. To that end, the Sisters of St Joseph have decided they're going to drop the lawsuit because they understand local health care is so important. The transition team will soon be set up, but they need the help of the minister. The Minister of Health finally has to take a stand. He finally has to come alive. He can't be dead silent on the issues any more.

Maybe we can ask a few questions of the minister while he ponders whether or not he's going to come alive. Where are the MRI services you promised last week? How much money will you remove from our community when you make your reinvestment announcements? Where is the province's commitment to the Sudbury YMCA Centre for Life project? Everybody else in the community -- the feds, the municipal representatives, private people, local citizens -- has bought into it. The only one who hasn't is the province. Where is your commitment? Will you ensure that you minimize the number of jobs that are lost in the health care industry in Sudbury?

If you follow the lead of Mike Harris and your fellow minister, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I think the answer to that will be no.

JOE BARANYK

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's with a great deal of sadness that I report here in the House this week the passing of Joe Baranyk. Joe, an OPP officer who served the people of Ontario for quite a few years, was awarded numerous awards by the Ontario Provincial Police for the work he had done.

Unfortunately, Joe passed away suddenly last week from an aneurism at the young age of 51. At the funeral on Saturday, I've never seen a community touched as much as they were touched by the passing of Joe Baranyk.

Everybody knew Joe. Joe was involved in absolutely everything in the community from the air cadet leagues to various charitable organizations, working with kids, working with swimming teams. There was hardly a group in the community in the city of Timmins or the area that had not come in contact with Joe Baranyk over the years. I report to the House that it's with sadness I want to pass on to his widow, Irene, and to the three girls our condolences from the Legislature for his unfortunate passing.

I just would say in closing, seldom in my time here have I felt as deeply the passing of an individual in our community. Everybody is obviously a very important person in our community, but Joe I would consider not only a community-minded person, but also a good friend of mine. I was quite saddened to see that unfortunately Joe was not able to be with us any more. I would like to acknowledge that.

RESCUE MISSION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I recently received a letter from a constituent of mine, Erin Livingston, informing me of a special initiative in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay. Erin is a grade 8 student at Spruce Glen public school in Huntsville who wrote me on behalf of her class and her teacher, Mrs Susan Hawkins.

I'm proud to inform the Legislature today of an effort launched by these students, their teacher and their school in an attempt to help restore the environment around the world. The grade 8 students at Spruce Glen were the first elementary school in Canada to join Rescue Mission, an international project developed by children to plan the environmental future of the planet.

Rescue Mission is directly affiliated with the United Nations, UNICEF and Peace Child International. One of the goals of this class is to raise public awareness about the environment in the community of Huntsville. They recently were involved in a Kids' Expo at Huntsville Place Mall, where they had the opportunity to speak to members of the community, sell buttons they had made, T-shirts and bookmarks.

Since February, the students have been developing environment projects which they presented at this month's home and school meeting. They are also active in corresponding via the Internet with other schools across Canada and around the world in an attempt to encourage other young people to take an interest in environmental issues.

With the recent celebration of Earth Day, an assembly was organized solely by the grade 8 students to continue their goal of educating others about the environment.

I want to say on behalf of the province how impressed I am by the dedication of these students, which will likely become a lifelong goal.

USER FEES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Anyone who listened to Mike Harris in the last provincial election campaign would remember that he promised that "Under this plan, there will be no new user fees." That's the so-called Common Sense Revolution. Yet when in power, the Conservative government of Mike Harris has imposed $225 million in new user fees for seniors and lower-income people who purchase medication through the Ontario drug benefit plan.

This has worried the Ontario senior citizens' organizations in Ontario. They say seniors are being dealt a harsh blow as a result of these user fees on drugs. User fees on drugs will penalize the least healthy and often the poorest in society, for it often discourages people from seeking treatment they need. This will lead to a greater cost in the long run, with an increase in hospitalization rates.

Now he has insulted them even more, because he did not have the courtesy to adjust the $100 annual fee which they started collecting on July 15 of last year -- it's not annual, because this year it covered only nine and a half months -- for those who make over $16,000. So the government of Ontario owes seniors a refund.

It just goes to show you that you can't trust Conservatives when it comes to health care. They have broken their promises on health care. They've said there would be no user fees, and there are now user fees, and their new definition of a year is nine and a half months. Seniors of this province will remember.

CANADA GAMES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The site selection committee for the 2001 Canada Games is engaging in its process now of determining the site. It's going to be one of the three Ontario locations that have made the short list. One of those locations of course is Niagara region. The site selection committee was down in Niagara last Wednesday as they toured the facilities and the remarkable plethora of venues that are available for these games in Niagara.

They made note, I'm sure, of the strong francophone community in Niagara, which will enable Niagara to meet the minimum requirement of 250 francophone volunteers handily.

People from across the region were out in full force greeting this site selection committee. I was with folks from Welland at the Welland baseball stadium on Wednesday evening as thousands of Wellanders came out, accompanied by Guides and Scouts. Members of the community who are eager to participate in these games, eager to host them, should pay tribute to Rob Neill, who is the chair of the bid committee in Niagara and who showed exceptional energy and enthusiasm on behalf of Niagarans as he has prepared Niagara to undertake the responsibility for hosting these games.

I have every confidence that Niagara is undoubtedly the number one location, and I urge you, Speaker, and members of this assembly to join with me in encouraging the selection of regional Niagara, with all of its amenities, the vineyards and fruit lands, the historical sites and natural sites, as the location for these games.

EDUCATION WEEK

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Today is the beginning of Education Week in Ontario. Under the theme of "Better Education for a Brighter Future," parents, teachers and students in communities across this province will celebrate their achievements and aspirations for the future. I would like to invite the members of the House to join me in congratulating them for their accomplishments.

We firmly believe that a quality education is a passport to opportunity for the individual student growing up in a rapidly changing world. It is a vital factor in determining how well we as a society will succeed in an increasingly complex and competitive global economy.

We are moving ahead with reforms that will improve student performance and the accountability of the education system.

Ontario grade 3 students have just completed the first province-wide test in reading, writing and mathematics. It has been a learning experience for all of us in the education system. After all, it was the most ambitious test ever undertaken in this province.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the teachers, principals and students involved in the grade 3 testing. The tests are now being marked, and results will be sent home to students and parents in June. Teachers will also receive feedback to ensure the test results lead to program improvements.

Furthermore, as teachers get ready to administer grade 6 tests, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the Education Quality and Accountability Office, which is committed to providing the government with reliable data and parents with useful information on their children's performance.

In addition, we are also moving to provide our teachers with high-quality training --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much.

STUDENT CONFERENCE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On Friday evening I had the opportunity to spend the evening in Ridgetown with 150 grade 10 students who were part of the Hugh O'Brien Youth Foundation Conference for Youth. This collection of 150 students are leaders and were selected as such to participate in a weekend-long conference that bolsters these young people of Ontario.

We participated in little sessions with groups of these grade 10 students. Here are some of the questions they posed to me:

"What about me?" They were so concerned about provincial cutbacks and specifically how they relate to young people.

They said: "What about the job market? Where do I fit in in the future? Is anyone looking out for me?" Unfortunately, there was very little information I could pass on that this government has its young people as any part of its priority at all.

They said: "What about curriculum reform? Who's looking out for us? What are we missing in terms of information? What happens in that one year when those two classes will be graduating from secondary school and they both hit the job market and/or post-secondary education in that same year? What about those kids? What's going to happen to them? Are the guidelines going to be more stringent? Will there be jobs for them?"

These are the kinds of questions that young people today need an answer to.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Last week I attended several meetings as the critic for housing and municipal affairs. I was at one meeting at Willowglen Co-op. I believe that's in the riding of York East. I attended another meeting at Greenbrae Residents Association; it was a public housing meeting. One of the things that came out of that discussion of course is that they're concerned. A common concern both of co-op members and people living in public housing is concern about what's going to happen to their homes.

There was concern in particular at the Greenbrae Residents Association, the riding which the Minister of Culture is in, Scarborough-Ellesmere. I know she was invited but couldn't make it, and I understand the federal Liberal member of that riding couldn't make it. The concern of those residents is that the federal Liberal government is about to abandon their $2-billion responsibility for co-ops and social housing and is about to give it to this government, which wants to download their whole housing responsibility down to the municipal sector.

They have concerns and they want to plead with the federal Liberal government not to give up the responsibility for housing and give it away to a government that doesn't want any responsibility for housing. They're seriously concerned about what's going to happen to their future, but to their homes in particular, because we're talking about low-income people. I hope the government is going to listen to them, because I'm worried too.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise in the House today as the member for Scarborough Centre to recognize this week as Mental Health Week.

Mental health programs are a priority for our government, and that is why our government has allocated $23.5 million for the community investment fund. This fund is our government's commitment to ensuring that people with mental illness receive the care they need in their communities.

The community investment fund is an investment in community services and supports for people with serious mental illness. Priority services include case management, including supports for housing, crisis response and consumer/survivor and family initiatives.

The community investment fund represents $20 million in base funding and $3.5 million in one-time funding. Currently our government spends $1.2 billion annually on mental health services, including inpatient, community and physician services. Funding for mental health services in Ontario has been fully protected.

Our government has protected program funding for the community investment fund and all mental health services, and any administrative efficiencies that can be found within mental health services will be reinvested into other direct mental health services. This is part of our government's continuing commitment to put patients first. To date, 50 of the 104 programs allocated under the community investment fund are already up and running.

I want to ask each of the members to join me today in recognizing Mental Health Week and to commend the efforts of the numerous volunteers who will be out in the communities volunteering their time --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Premier. Over the next few days we're going to hear a few Tory myths come from the mouths of the Premier and the finance minister. We're going to hear stories about what a good job this government is doing and how well Ontarians are doing.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Cordiano: It's a myth. Perhaps the backbenchers of this government would like to applaud the fact that this government has cut $145 million to junior kindergarten or that this government has cut another $150 million to adult education. Why don't you applaud that? Why don't you applaud those kinds of stories? Tell us about how you cut $400 million from colleges and universities and how our per-pupil funding levels are among the lowest -- and I repeat, the lowest -- in North America. Why don't you applaud that?

Premier, when will you admit that all you're concerned about is the bottom line and that you're prepared to sacrifice our children's education in order to meet your bottom line?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): In spite of the fact of the disastrous fiscal mess that we inherited after 10 years of Liberal and NDP government, in spite of the fact of $2 billion in cuts to social spending from your federal cousins, now somehow or other seeking re-election on those cuts, we have continued to provide virtually the highest per-capita funding in the world in almost every area, including children, including education, including health care.

If you want to get into some of the statistics, we spend on child care 10 times what your Liberal cousin does in New Brunswick; we spend three times what the NDP Premier does in Saskatchewan, per capita, per person, per child. Here is a government that in spite of the mess we inherited has probably shown more compassion and more desire to support children and the needy than any other government in the history of Canada.

Mr Cordiano: The Premier can throw around all the myths he wants and all the phoney figures he wants but you're not going to be able to hide from the reality, and people see that reality.

Let's talk about your record on jobs. In the last seven months Ontario lost 11,000 jobs, while the rest of Canada gained 88,000 jobs. You said you would create 145,000 jobs a year in your Common Sense Revolution. Almost two years into your mandate you're 147,000 jobs behind.

The people being hit the hardest are youth, with an unemployment rate of almost 20%. Shame on you. The people being hit over and over again are those people who are looking for jobs but can't find one. Why don't you tell young people what a great job you're doing in this province, Premier? They see right through you. They see that they are looking for jobs but they can't find one.

Premier, you have created a huge human deficit in our province. When are you personally going to take responsibility for that huge human deficit?

Hon Mr Harris: The job figures you quote are about as mythical and wrong as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's. This province is leading Canada by any measure in private sector job creation: acknowledged by every other province, much to their chagrin, acknowledged by the federal government, acknowledged by StatsCan, acknowledged by every measure. Is it good enough? No, it is not good enough.

However, let me give you this as a statistic that is the fact: There are more people employed in Ontario today than in its entire history. Is that good enough? No. Why is the unemployment rate still so high? Because more people are coming to Ontario now. More people are entering the workforce. Instead of like the last 10 years when they came here for welfare, now they're coming for jobs. Let's celebrate that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Heckling is out of order, I would remind the members for Dovercourt, Sudbury, Windsor-Sandwich and probably Lake Nipigon too.

Mr Cordiano: The sad reality is that there are literally thousands of people looking for jobs and they can't find one. How can you tell the one in five children in Ontario living in poverty that everything is okay in this province?

Ontarians are likely to believe that as much as they believe that your tax cut hasn't affected health care, Premier. I'm not just talking about the 22 hospitals you have slated for closure; I'm talking about the fact that people are dying unattended in hallways in our hospitals because your cuts are forcing the layoff of more than 15,000 nurses. I'm talking about the $225 million in user fees for drugs you have forced on seniors and the disabled.

Premier, this is your record, a record that leaves a huge human deficit. When will you admit that your entire approach to governing is wrong? When will you admit that you're willing to sacrifice thousands of people to get to the bottom line? When will you admit that?

Hon Mr Harris: I want to acknowledge one thing that we do believe is very important that your government didn't and the NDP didn't: The bottom line is important. If you are going to pass on to our children and their children and their grandchildren balanced books instead of spending today and asking them to pay for it tomorrow, as is your approach, then the bottom line is important to this government. I want you to know that.

Second, I want to tell you this: In spite of the deficits you passed on to us, in spite of your federal Liberal cousins in Ottawa, in spite of all those situations, here is a government spending more on health care than in this province's record, far more than we campaigned and committed to do, because we've taken this approach, that if there is a need for the disadvantaged, if there is a need for children, if there is a need for health care, if there is a need for the disabled and the elderly, we put that first, and those are the programs that we're funding first.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Health. Following upon the Premier's last response, my question very much concerns putting the needs of patients first in Ontario.

Minister, 18 months ago you announced on behalf of your government that there would be a significant expansion of kidney dialysis programs in eastern Ontario, that programs would be expanded in Ottawa and Renfrew and Belleville and a new program would start in Cornwall. That was much applauded.

Eighteen months later there is no progress. The lineups are even longer than they were a year ago. The question that kidney dialysis patients from Renfrew county to west Hastings want me to ask you today is, when are you going to do something to make good on your 18-months-ago promise that kidney dialysis programs will be expanded in our part of eastern Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The question is a little unfair, given that 18 months ago the honourable member in this House brought into question the RFP, request for proposal, tendering process for eastern Ontario. As a result of his questions in the House we now have legal action before the government and I can't comment further on that.

However, I can say that about 22 new clinics are up and running around the province today and we're just waiting to expand. The money has already been announced, you're right, well over a year ago. It's sitting there, waiting to expand services in eastern Ontario, but we are before the courts with respect to that particular tender.

Mr Conway: The minister is right. A year ago I brought to this House New York Times articles about National Medical Care of Boston, a really wonderful bunch of bad actors who were in great controversy in the United States for what they were doing in the kidney dialysis business. You're bloody right that Lyn McLeod and Sean Conway brought that to the attention of the minister.

I understand that it's now at court, but the basic question remains. I represent people who have to, three times a week from the Upper Ottawa Valley, drive over six hours for a five-hour kidney dialysis treatment in Ottawa, winter and summer. You promised that the situation would change not just in Renfrew but in Cornwall, in Belleville, in Kingston and in Ottawa. You have not made good on that promise.

What I want to know is, quite apart from the court case that arose from your botched privatization scheme, Minister, what are you going to say to the kidney dialysis patients who are on ever-expanding waiting lists throughout eastern Ontario? When are they going to get off those waiting lists and get to the Renfrew, Cornwall and Belleville sites for the care you promised?

Hon Mr Wilson: There are times in government when you're not free perhaps to shed all the light on a particular issue. The honourable member knows that it was a request for a proposal that went out to the hospitals and to the private sector and that across the province, with the exception of eastern Ontario because of the court case, those tenders were awarded. Most of them went to hospitals, highest quality, best price, and it was considered a real success.

I understand this issue fully. I spent many years in opposition ensuring that the previous government would begin to move on this and they didn't. We have moved everywhere in the province but eastern Ontario because the matter is before the courts. As soon as the courts have dealt with that, we will move forward.

Mr Conway: Jim Wilson is now the Minister of Health. He has some responsibilities.

I might add that the Renfrew and Belleville proposals had nothing to do with Dr Posen and the National Medical scheme that got you into trouble and got you into court, and that the people at the Renfrew Victoria Hospital have made a specific proposal to you in recent weeks on how they might undertake some emergency measures to reduce their waiting lists so these good people who have to travel all this distance three times a week might be cared for. To date, they've got nothing but the back of your hand.

I repeat, Minister, what are you going to do to now relieve the pressure that has been building? These waiting lists in Cornwall and Renfrew and Belleville grow. You know and I know that the demand for kidney dialysis is growing at an annual rate of 10%. What measures are you going to take to provide the service you promised 18 months ago to the people of urban and rural eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: We did announce fairly recently an expansion of current services, and some of those dollars went to eastern Ontario to look after patients there. I know there's tremendous demand. Again, I cannot comment on the court case, other than to say that when it's solved, we look forward to, as we announced, expanding so there'll be more sites available throughout eastern Ontario. We're doing our best right now, within the confines directed by the court, to expand the existing services.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'd like to direct my question to the Premier, and it continues on this theme of broken promises. In your answers earlier, we heard a lot of superlatives: the best in the history of the country, the best in the history of Ontario. I suspect that tomorrow we'll hear you say you're going to be spending more on health care than any other government in the history of Ontario has ever spent.

Let me quote these words back to you, from last year's budget, the finance minister: "This year we will spend $600 million on child care -- the highest...in...Ontario's history."

Premier, we know that's another broken promise. We know that you raised expectations and didn't come through. This morning, your finance minister was quoted as saying that broken promise is one of his "biggest disappointments." I can tell you, there are a lot of parents and children out there who are pretty disappointed as well: children and families who are on waiting lists, who face their centres being closed, where subsidies have been done away with because of your downloading to municipalities. Your finance minister said he was sorry. Premier, what do you say to the parents and children of Ontario who are waiting for child care services?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Sorry.

Ms Lankin: I'm glad to hear that's a "sorry" to those people. What I want to know is, when is there going to be some action? That promise of $40 million for last year's budget and for every year for the next five years was the largest single commitment you made for spending on children. You haven't come through. In fact, you not only didn't come through on that, but over 9,000 spaces have disappeared; the subsidies at the municipal levels are gone, so the province isn't picking up their share; and you've cut over $50 million in capital funding for child care centres.

You're going to be a government that has spent less than other governments in the history of Ontario. Would you at least admit to that? When we see the actual figures, we will see that your government has spent less on child care than previous governments in the history of Ontario. Please admit that.

Hon Mr Harris: That is totally false and incorrect, along with most of the allegations you make. Nobody regrets more than the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Finance and I that we had not been able to get uptake on the child care money that was there and was there right up until the end of the year.

I want to say that with in-fighting from all those who have been involved in the child care group, we have not been able to get that money out -- not for bureaucracy, not for the failed programs that you were on, not for wasting the money in how many of these companies you can put out of business, but to actually help children. Nobody regrets that more than we do. I can tell you, if you're in the House tomorrow, we'll have it fixed.

Ms Lankin: I have never seen a Premier of this province who stands up and states anything that comes into his mind, even when there's no factual basis to it. Premier, you are dead wrong. That $40 million didn't remain unspent because there was no takeup. People are crying in communities across this province for additional spaces. You put a freeze on those dollars; your government never released those dollars. Please correct your own statements in this House.

Time and time again I have raised the example of four child care centres in Toronto schools that are about to go out of business altogether because your government won't fund the capital reconstruction as those schools are being redesigned, renovated or rebuilt.

They've made some progress. From the city of Toronto and Metro, which would not normally ever have funded this, they've got a commitment of $800,000-plus. All they need now is $390,000 and you can save 214 child care spaces in this city. Would you tell me, with $40 million left unspent -- tomorrow it'll be $80 million left unspent -- are you going to lose those 214 spaces in four centres for the want of $400,000? Will you commit to that today?

Hon Mr Harris: What we are committed to doing is addressing the failed, disastrous, money-wasting policies your government brought into place that spent more and more money and did not help one single child find new child care. That has been the problem. We are committed to correct that, and if you're here in the House tomorrow when the budget is read, you will see that in fact we have come up with a solution to carry on spending 50 times more than Quebec in child care, three times more than Saskatchewan in child care, 1000% more than Liberal New Brunswick, all on a per capita basis.

But I can tell you this: If you're waiting for us to throw the money away the way you did, you don't want to be here tomorrow.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Beaches-Woodbine, Welland-Thorold and Fort York, please come to order. Heckling is out of order. The member for Lake Nipigon also.

New question; the leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier. It's the first time I've heard investing money in children described as throwing it away, the first time I've ever heard it put that way.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, about health care, it's clear your policy towards our hospitals is one of cutting them, not one of better health care. You've taken $800 million out of hospital budgets so far, and that has meant that hospitals have had to lay off thousands of nurses and other health care workers and they've had to reduce patient care.

Even one of your advisers, Dr David Naylor, in a recent speech to the Canadian Club, sent you a message. He said, "Don't cut hospital budgets a further $500 million, because patient care will really have to be sacrificed." Premier, will you commit today that next year, in the coming year, you will not cut a further $500 million out of hospital budgets and make even further cuts to patient care across this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think all members are aware that there will be a budget, a document for the year, and it will be read tomorrow. The Minister of Finance will read it, and we will have to await that to get the details of spending and funding commitments. But let me assure you of this: At no time in our first budget, in our first year in office, in our second year in office or as long as we are in office will we cut one cent out of any budget if we think it will affect patient care.

Mr Hampton: We have the Premier's words and then we have the reality out there. We have the reality of young children who can't get cancer care because the hospital where they're supposed to receive it doesn't have enough nurses on duty that day to provide it. We have elderly patients dying in hallways because hospitals don't have enough nurses and other health care workers to provide the staffing they need.

Premier, you need to see the reality. The fact of the matter is that your government has severely cut patient care. Virtually every one across this province knows it. You can announce and reannounce different programs, but the fact of the matter is that patient care has been affected, is being affected.

What people want to know is, what is your government going to do? The Minister of Finance was able to organize a press conference at the top of the CN Tower. What are you going to do about the $800 million you've taken out of hospital budgets so far, the $500 million you're going to take next year, and all the negative effects that has had on patient care? What are you going to do to fix that?

Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of Health, I'm sure, can answer.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member is in error once again. We have seen, in savings from hospitals to date, about $325 million, and I have personally announced $950 million worth of reinvestments in the health care system, over two and a half times more than we've seen in savings to date. We have never said that restructuring would save money. What we said it would do is get rid of the waste, the duplication, the excessive administrative costs. Every dollar and more has gone back into the health care system.

The honourable member again is wrong, and David Naylor said this in his speech: "We've seen no evidence at all of cuts in patient services or the quality of care that hospitals and other delivery agencies are delivering to the people of Ontario." I'd ask the honourable member to keep to the facts. The facts are not as he has espoused.

Mr Hampton: I'll read from Dr Naylor's speech, because Dr Naylor is very specific. He says: "I would like to take this chance to call publicly on the minister and the Premier to take two key steps that will help stabilize our hospital sector in this period of unprecedented restructuring. First, cancel the across-the-board cut planned for 1998. With a growing aging population, with pressures of new technologies, it won't work.

Second, make a public announcement confirming that contingency funds are available for this year." In other words, he says the problem is so urgent, that patient care is being affected so badly, that not only should you not make a $500-million cut next year, but you should provide contingency funds for this year.

Minister, I suspect you need to learn the facts and I suggest you do that. Dr Naylor is saying patient care is already being affected. A further $500-million cut to hospital budgets will affect it even worse. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, because I know Dr Naylor would not want this to stand on the record of this Parliament, he did not say that patient care is being adversely affected. What he did say, and it's very consistent with what the Ontario Hospital Association has said and what I have said and government members have said for the past months, is: We're looking very carefully at the third year of the savings that we've asked of hospitals, because, as the Premier said, the policy is not a drive to save money; the policy is to get rid of the waste, duplication and inefficiency in the system.

Restructuring costs money up front, but at the end of the day we'll have more services for more patients. We are motivated by the huge number of seniors that will come on stream in the next two years, requiring ever-increasing health care in this province, and the growing population. That is our motivation for restructuring, to get the system fixed so we can serve more patients at modern hospitals with the newest technologies and the newest drug therapies.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Speaker, the Premier earlier in the House -- this is on personal privilege -- indicated that I used erroneous figures. This is not the first time he has tried this: he did it on February 24, and the next day I sent the Premier a letter demanding that he produce the evidence. I find that I'm not going to stand for his bully tactics. He may be able to get away with it in caucus. He may be able to use his power somewhere else --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't see that as a point of privilege, to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

New question. Official opposition, member for York South.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I also have a question for the Premier. Mr Premier, I'd like to talk to you about Scott Charland. I'd like to talk to you about Mr Charland because you received a letter from his parish priest, and in it the parish priest tells you that Mr Charland, 38 years old, was diagnosed as suffering from angina. He was referred to hospital for an angiogram. On the day of the test, he and his family were called and the test was cancelled. It was cancelled due to the lack of beds at the Ottawa Heart Institute.

They rescheduled the angiogram and when they did that, the day of the test he was cancelled again. It was scheduled for April 17, and Mr Charland died on April 13. He was pronounced dead on his arrival at hospital.

Mr Premier, you have said in this House already today that not one cent that would cut into patient care would go. In fact you have cut hospitals $800 million. Will you do the right thing? Will you respect what happened to Mr Charland and unfortunately to others across the province? Will you cancel the second year of cuts in your budget tomorrow?

Hon Mr Harris: First, nobody is suggesting that the health care system is perfect, that this government is perfect or that the science of medicine at any time, given any amount of money, is ever perfect. Second, this government, as all members would, as all of those involved in the community would, obviously regret any situation, for whatever reason, that caused problems to any individual in the health care system. Let me state that on behalf of any who may have been involved in that. Third, the budget will be delivered tomorrow.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Premier, tomorrow people will be looking for the sincerity in your statement. What this Anglican priest says to you is that the treatment required was not available due to your cuts in health services. What this concerned family and their parish priest say to you is that you and your ministers show a cavalier disregard in what you propose and in how what you propose affects the lives of ordinary people.

Mr Premier, you are moving people out of beds in hospitals quicker and sicker to empty them, to save money, and you've saved $800 million. Your minister travels the province making empty promises he doesn't live up to in terms of reinvestments. Tomorrow, Premier, we're looking for you to live up to this.

I want to ask you the question that this parish priest is asking you, and these are his words: "To please explain to Scott Charland's wife, Elvalea, and their two children what your concern for the bottom line is doing to make their lives more livable without a husband and a father."

Hon Mr Harris: Let me assure you and the minister and the family that we have not cut a cent from health care. We have dramatically increased funding to health care. We have increased funding to cardiac care.

Let me also say that we are accepting the very best advice we can get from the best health care professionals and the best managers of health care that we can find anywhere in Canada as to how those dollars that we are increasing should be allocated, the best medical and the best managerial advice in health care as to how our increasing commitment to health care can be managed. That, I think, is the prudent and the best thing we can do as a government.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Health and member for York South, come to order.

Mr Marchese: Minister, your son of mega-week announcement is but a slight improvement on the original. You are still dumping $666 million in costs on to the municipalities by taking away their unconditional grants, and the costs of social housing and family benefits mean that property taxpayers can expect taxes to go up. Even your friends at the Toronto board of trade call the impact of your new announcement on Metro a time bomb. Will you deny that you are dumping $347 million on to the homeowners and tenants in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What this government did was listen to the concerns of municipalities. We have met with AMO. We had negotiations with AMO on what was the best way to separate the delivery of services between the municipalities and the province. AMO came back with a proposal a few weeks ago that indicated a means and way of separating those services and splitting the costs that was acceptable to them. That was a proposal put forward by the municipalities. The municipalities are convinced that this is the best approach. We concurred with that and changed our proposal to accept theirs.

Mr Marchese: I asked a question on whether or not the minister will deny that he is dumping $347 million on to the homeowner and the tenant of Metropolitan Toronto, and he talks to me about AMO. I didn't ask him anything about AMO and what they said. It's a different question. Ministers have to begin to answer our questions.

Minister, you are reducing income taxes and increasing property taxes to the tune of $666 million. You are reducing the tax that is based on ability to pay and increasing the tax that hits the poor and the middle class the hardest. That is so consistent with your government's record of whacking homeowners and tenants who can least afford it. Think of the elderly couples, not just in my riding but in Metro and beyond, who own their homes but because of your download will have to pay more in property taxes with the miserly pensions that they get.

Why should that elderly couple pay for your tax cut for the wealthiest citizens of Ontario who will benefit from that tax cut? Why?

Hon Mr Leach: They always neglect to mention the amount of money that's coming off as a result of 50% of the cost of education coming off the property tax. I also point out to the member that in the bill that's being put forward, Bill 106, there was language in that bill that allowed for the municipalities to provide relief to seniors and low-income families that are affected as a result of tax shifts from the assessment standpoint.

I can assure this House that this government is quite aware and quite knowledgeable about what effect our legislation is going to have on seniors and low-income families, and I can assure you that there is language in that legislation to make sure they're protected.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Minister, the annual hunt for summer jobs for students is well under way in Halton and province-wide. Thousands of students are looking for opportunities to gain some experience and earn some income. What is your ministry doing to help these students find summer work?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): To the member for Halton Centre, I'm very pleased to tell him that this government is indeed very concerned about jobs for students in the summer. There is good news for students this summer, and I would like to elaborate on that if I could.

There will be nearly 3,000 summer jobs available through my ministry, the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. The Niagara Parks Commission will be offering 500 positions.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Obviously, they don't like to hear the good news.

Ontario Place Corp is offering 490 jobs and some other locations where new jobs will available are in Huronia historical parks, Old Fort William and the St Lawrence Parks Commission.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would caution the member for Sault Ste Marie to come to order.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Three more warnings.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, come to order. I warn the member for Sault Ste Marie to come to order. I'll also take this great opportunity to ask the member for Ottawa-Rideau to come to order as well. Supplementary.

Mr Young: Minister, will there be opportunities for students who wish to start their own small business?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm very happy to report that there will be up to $3,000 available for those students --

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The scary part, Speaker, is that he used to work on Bay Street.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I can stand here and everyone can heckle and I'll wait, but you're not even in your seat and that's way out of order. I would ask either that you go back to your seat or stop heckling, or better yet, both. Minister.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Before I was interrupted, may I say that I would not be surprised that the students in Ontario would be very upset to hear the opposition laughing about the good news about summer jobs for them.

I'm happy to say that the Royal Bank, in partnership with my ministry, is to arrange key funding for student venture programs. Up to $3,000 will be available for enterprising students who wish to run their own businesses as independents this summer. Students from 15 to 29 years of age who will be returning full-time to university or school --

Interjections.

The Speaker: We'll just keep waiting until we get this question in. Minister.

Hon Mr Saunderson: As I was saying, those students between 15 and 29 years of age who will be returning to university or school on a full-time basis in the fall will be eligible for these assistance programs by the Royal Bank and our ministry. I think what all of this shows is that this government is determined to boost summer jobs and to help the job market for students. All Ontario students who are willing to work will certainly get this assistance, and we're very pleased to make this announcement.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Premier. All property taxpayers listened with great interest to the announcement that was made last week with respect to the downloading and also with respect to the news release that you put out entitled Who Does What: A New Partnership for Taxpayers.

As we have stated and as municipalities have been telling you throughout the last two or three months, your last plan called for a downloading of an extra $1 billion to the local taxpayers. The overriding principle that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario put in its proposal to you -- and I'll quote it -- is that "The proposal is to be fiscally neutral between the provincial and local governments."

Premier, will you guarantee to the taxpayers of this province that a new proposal will not result in any increase in local property taxes?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me assure you of a couple of things. Given that the uploading the province took on is $3 million more than we've asked municipalities to take on, there's absolutely no reason, given that we have uploaded $3 million to ourselves, save and except the possibility that they elect Liberal and NDP spenders, why any of them as a result of that need to increase taxes.

Second, given that we accepted the proposal put forward by municipalities with a couple of very minor exceptions, I would think the municipalities would be saying, and I think a number of them are: "Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity for the dialogue, something we never had with previous governments to this extent."

Mr Gerretsen: The municipalities certainly aren't thanking you for anything in this regard. If anything, they're trying to make a good deal out of a very bad situation.

The initial figures are coming in. In the city of Kingston, $28 million would have been added on in the last proposal; $15 million will be added on to the local property taxpayers as a result of the latest proposal. The city of Hamilton: $88 million. According to the calculations out there, we expect somewhere between $500 million and $600 million will be downloaded by your government to the local property taxpayers.

Will you guarantee the local property taxpayers that they will not be paying any more as a result of these new funding arrangements?

Hon Mr Harris: I can assure you, as a result of Who Does What, that the figures show an uploading of $3 million on to the province as part of those discussions.

Let me tell you something else that they're not talking about very much, which I would hope you would want to take back to them. There was one proposal they asked us to do that we did not accept. That proposal was for the province of Ontario to take another $250 million, or 5%, for education. We said, "No. Thank you very much, but we think you need it more than we do," and we left $250 million more in tax capacity for the local municipal governments than they even asked us to do.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. I would like to return to the question of Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. As you know, last year I raised a number of questions with you and asked you to release reports so that the public and parents could have a sense of what was going on in your ministry and that their children who are incarcerated are safe.

It's my understanding that nine managers at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre were fired last Friday for not cooperating with the ministry's internal investigation. This disciplinary action is related to the allegations that young offenders were beaten and mistreated while in the care of your ministry. It's also our understanding, but we've been unable at this point in time to get confirmation, that your internal investigation was finished about a month ago.

It's been over a year since this disturbing incident took place, and people have been kept in the dark. I've asked you before for a commitment for those reports to be released. You gave me a commitment that the ministry investigation report would be released. We understand it's completed. Would you please give me a commitment today that you will release that report?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I can confirm that the report is complete. I received it about two and a half weeks ago, I think, roughly. I've received a legal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorney General that the release might prejudice ongoing court cases or police investigations and I have accepted that advice.

Ms Lankin: Minister, every time we ask you to be open with the public of Ontario, you come up with another excuse about why you're going to continue to keep them in the dark. These were really serious allegations, very serious events that took place at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. Would you confirm for us what action has been taken? Would you confirm for us the disciplinary actions that have been taken? Have nine managers been fired? Would you tell us what steps have been taken inside the institution to ensure the safety of children?

There was another report we asked for, the report of the child advocate, and you never made that public either. At this point in time it's not good enough to keep putting it off and saying: "There are other processes. It will jeopardize this," or "It will jeopardize that." What about the kids who have been in jeopardy in your ministry? We have a right to be assured that those kids are being taken care of. Will you release the child advocate's report to us? Will you confirm what actions have been taken in reaction to your internal ministry investigation?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've said from the outset with respect to this situation that I would release what I can when I can. I have to rely on the advice I'm receiving with respect to release dates and the amount of material and information that can be released.

With respect to disciplinary action, yes, some disciplinary action has been taken. I do not get involved in the details of those disciplinary moves. They are taken by the deputy minister's office, and that's the correct way in which they should be dealt with.

With respect to the young offenders' system, there has been a host of initiatives that we have understaken, which we've made public, with respect to the system: the CO-Start training program; I hope to make an announcement within the next few weeks with respect to a dedicated facility for young offenders for the first time in this province, a dedicated institution to house young offenders; the Inkster report, which took a look at management within the corrections system. We're now conducting a review of the culture within the corrections system. I think we've moved on a wide range of fronts to deal with systemic problems within the corrections system.

ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, Ontario's heritage is important to all Ontarians in this great province, but perhaps nowhere more so than in agriculture and food.

My riding of Halton North is home to the Ontario Agricultural Museum. I understand an agreement has been signed with a not-for-profit corporation to operate and manage the Ontario Agricultural Museum. Can you tell the members of the Legislature more about this good-news story?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Halton North for his question. Yes, the Country Heritage Experience Inc group has formed a not-for-profit corporation. They will be operating the agricultural museum.

The board of directors consists of representatives of all sectors of the agrifood industry, and I understand the corporation has developed a five-year plan that will keep the museum open and will indeed allow the visitors, the students who regularly visit the museum, to continue to learn about our agricultural heritage and its roots. So I'm very pleased that we have a private sector non-profit corporation running our agricultural museum.

Mr Chudleigh: That's indeed good news for the residents and constituents of Halton North. The Ontario Agricultural Museum is set to open its doors on May 17 and will continue to be open five days a week right through to Thanksgiving. Can you describe how this showcase of Ontario's agricultural heritage will benefit from private sector involvement?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I'd be pleased just to remind my colleagues that the agricultural museum is situated at Milton just off the 401, well indicated. We anticipate some 70,000 visitors, including students and city people who know very little about agriculture and the roots of agriculture in this province and the importance of agriculture in this province, the second most important industry in the province. The museum is revitalized, not just privatized. It's anticipated by the board that they will not only break even but indeed will show a profit, and that is good news for all of Ontario agriculture.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Bill 106 amends the Assessment Act by adding the following definition: "`Current value' means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm's length by a willing seller to a willing buyer."

Minister, I have been a real estate professional, I have taught the course, and I can tell you that this definition is verbatim what the definition is for market value. Yet at our committee hearings, an official from the Ministry of Finance said there is a difference. I would ask you if you could explain to the House the difference between this definition of current value and that accepted by lawyers and by real estate professionals of what market value is.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Obviously both systems are value-based, and we've always stated that. It's a matter of how the systems are implemented. The 1992 version of market value assessment that was introduced by Metro and rejected by the NDP government had certain features which made it completely unpalatable to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, including myself. It called for assessments every four years; there are opportunities for lots of spikes -- a totally volatile situation.

The assessment system we're proposing calls for the assessment to be done on an annual basis with a three-year rolling average, which takes all the volatility out of the system. This is a system that will work well for Metropolitan Toronto. We've also put in aspects to protect seniors and the disabled and also to phase it in over eight years. There are tremendous differences between --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr Kwinter: We are talking about legislation; we are talking about the law. I have in my hand the Assessment Act of 1980, and it provides under

section 14, "Market value of the parcel of land." This was in 1980, when market value assessment was not an issue, yet in the committee those particular

definitions were changed without reference to anything else. Everywhere where it said "market value" there was put in "current value," which indicates that all you're doing is playing with words. If you're going to change the description of "market value" in the act to "current value" without any definition other than the one that is exactly the same as market value, you are really deceiving the public and the professionals who are in the field.

During the campaign of 1995, you issued and you said to homeowners in Cabbagetown, Moore Park and Rosedale, "My party and I will never" -- underlined -- "support the imposition of MVA," market value assessment, "in Metro Toronto," signed by Al Leach. Your colleague Isabel Bassett, underlined: "The policy of the PC Party has always been that we will never impose market value assessment on Toronto. We remain firm in that position." Yet this 106 substitutes the words "market value" for "current value." It is exactly the same. Again, I challenge you as I challenge --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Wilson Heights. Minister?

Interjection: It gets him off the hook, that's all it does.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): We want to hear his answer.

The Speaker: Well, there's something you can do to facilitate that. Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm glad the member pointed that out, because I did oppose the proposed market value assessment that was introduced by Metro in 1992. It was a terrible system. It would have had devastating effects on properties in Metropolitan Toronto.

As a result, we developed a new system, the Ontario fair assessment system, which takes all the volatility out of the system that was proposed before. It's going to be reassessed every year, not every four years. It's going to have a three-year rolling average. There is going to be a phase-in period, not just rammed down their throats in one year, as was proposed before. There is legislated protection for seniors; there is legislated protection for low-income families. There is absolutely no comparison to the system that was proposed before. The system we're introducing is fair.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the minister for privatization. We know that when the minister's plans for privatization appeared to be floundering, he went to the firm of Coopers and Lybrand and hired, at almost a quarter of a million dollars a year, Mr Paul Currie from that company to get privatization moving again.

Apparently Mr Currie, before he was hired and still under the employ of Coopers and Lybrand, shared information he had with his superiors at Coopers and Lybrand. His superior, Mr Bolton, then went and had a meeting with the minister and asked to be reassured -- this comes from a memo written by Mr Bolton himself -- that Coopers and Lybrand would not be kicked off the gravy train just because Mr Currie was going to work for the minister at a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Would the minister tell us if he thinks that's appropriate behaviour for him to engage in when there was inside information given to one firm as to what was going to be privatized?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I am not exactly sure what the member opposite is talking about. I suspect he's referring to a memo that was referred to this House in a question last week that would seem to have indicated that I had discussion with Mr Bolton. In fact, I spoke to Mr Bolton only once, and that was what I thought appropriate, to confirm the qualifications and expertise of Mr Currie, something that somebody would have done in any circumstance. I wanted to make sure that Mr Currie represented his qualifications, his expertise and his skill level appropriately. In fact, Mr Bolton confirmed that was the case.

Mr Laughren: That's very interesting. Is the minister denying that Mr Currie, when he was still working for Coopers and Lybrand, was shown a very long list of privatization candidates which he then shared with his superiors at Coopers and Lybrand?

If that's the case, since the minister chose not to share any list like that with the Legislature -- we've only seen a very short list, which included a few trees in a tree nursery -- I'd ask the minister, do you think it's appropriate that this firm, which has seen a long list that we haven't seen, then has access to the minister to talk about that, not just about Mr Currie's qualifications? Do you think that's appropriate? I'll tell you, that's in clear violation of Management Board guidelines. I'd ask the minister if he has looked into that and whether he thinks it's appropriate behaviour for him as minister.

Hon Mr Sampson: I think the member opposite is indicating that I referred or showed some list to Mr Bolton. In fact, that's not the case. I never showed Mr Bolton a list, because one didn't exist. The only information we've disclosed that we have on companies that are considered for privatization are the ones I disclosed on Monday of last week, four companies.

The member may be referring to -- and maybe he has now had a chance to look in his in basket -- a report by the agencies, boards and commissions that was orchestrated by Mr Wood some time ago. There is a list of some companies where he suggested we might take a look at privatization. That perhaps is the list he's referring to. If he's suggesting that I referred some list to Mr Bolton in advance of the disclosure of the names that were released on Monday, the answer is no.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, my constituents have been urging me to tell you to get Highway 407 open. They want and need this highway for their business. What's the status as a result of the report that's come in?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate the question. Yes, we must get 407 open, because I believe Halton, Peel and York regions are certainly going to benefit in an economic sense with 407 open.

I was very pleased to find that the PEOs have found the highway very safe, but they did recommend that we consider doing some safety enhancements. We have begun the process of doing those enhancements, and we're somehow looking to open up this highway sometime towards the end of May or the early part of June.

Mr Spina: That's good news to hear. I also understand that some of these safety concerns you're addressing now are being done directly from the taxpayers' pocket. I didn't know whether this was something that was anticipated, or is this just something that's come up as a surprise to the ministry?

Hon Mr Palladini: Certainly the enhancements that we are taking on and doing were not part of the original project, of the $930 million. These funds, which appear to be somewhere in the vicinity of between $13 million and $15 million, are going to be coming out of a contingency fund. Yes, the money is going to be spent, but we will recoup those dollars through tolling over the 25-year period.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. You'll be aware that Management Board intends to privatize the mail and the printing services in 15 ministries. The total operation involves some 120 individuals, about 30 of whom have developmental handicaps, hearing, visual and others, and some of whom have worked for the government for over 20 years. Many of these individuals came into the public service under governments that believed in fairness and equity, especially for the developmentally handicapped.

Minister, my question for you -- and you're responsible for employment equity, although I know the name has now been changed to 1-800 the equal opportunity program -- can you tell me what assurances you've won on behalf of these workers so that when their jobs are privatized the principles of fairness and equity will be guaranteed in any contracts awarded to outside companies?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you for the question. I'll pass it over to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Yes, we are looking at the mail services, the courier services, printing services, photocopying services, quite an array of services that in total cost the taxpayers about $12 million a year. Management Board has looked into this, and there's a great possibility that the taxpayers could be saved a tremendous amount of money by contracting this out with the private sector.

But I will say that Management Board is concerned about the disabled people, challenged employees who are working in various positions, and extra points will be awarded to those potential employers, to those bidding, who guarantee to take on the existing staff. Through this process, we are attempting to ensure that as many of the existing staff are hired as possible.

PETITIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a very important petition to the government of Ontario, very timely. It says:

"To the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario appears to be moving towards the privatization of retail liquor and spirit sales in the province; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a safe, secure and controlled way of retailing alcoholic beverages; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides the best method of restricting the sale of liquor to minors in Ontario; and

"Whereas the LCBO has an excellent program of quality control of the products sold in its stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a wide selection of product to its customers in modern, convenient stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO has moved forward with the times, sensitive to the needs of its customers and its clients; and

"Whereas the LCBO is an important instrument for the promotion and sale of Ontario wines and thereby contributes immensely to grape growing and the wine-producing industry;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its plan to turn the sale of liquor and spirits over to private liquor stores and retain the LCBO for this purpose."

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

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and other desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Minister of Health to provide appropriate levels of health care funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I expect a line in the budget specifically about Windsor hospital services.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions, hundreds in fact, signed by auto workers in Windsor, Oshawa and Brampton, forwarded to me by Buzz Hargrove, national president of the Canadian Auto Workers. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further, we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

On behalf of my caucus colleagues in the NDP, I add my name to theirs.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail, and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation," and I think they're referring to the Marland bill, "that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

In the week we hope to pass the Wettlaufer resolution, I will affix my own signature thereto.

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : Une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que la recommandation de la Commission de restructuration des soins de santé en Ontario ordonne la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort et que cette décision constitue le rejet de la volonté de l'entière communauté francophone de la province et de la communauté de l'est ;

«Attendu que 40 % des francophones de la province de l'Ontario résident dans l'aire de service de l'hôpital Montfort, soit à l'est de l'Ontario, où la population connaît un des plus hauts taux de croissance dans toute la province, que le comté de Russell n'a pas d'hôpital et qu'en plus, Montfort dessert le nord le l'Ontario, où le nombre de francophones est très élevé ;

«Attendu que la fermeture de Montfort éloigne et diminue grandement l'accessibilité à une salle d'urgence pour plus de 150 000 personnes ;

«Attendu que l'on fait disparaître l'hôpital qui a un des meilleurs rendements de la province et qui, pour fins de comparaison, constitue l'exemple de choix du ministère de la Santé ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Nous demandons que le premier ministre de la province intervienne fermement auprès de la Commission de restructuration des services de santé de l'Ontario afin que soit préservé l'emplacement actuel de l'hôpital et que soient consolidés la vocation, le mandat et le rôle essentiel que joue Montfort auprès de sa communauté.»

C'est avec plaisir et honneur, Monsieur le député, que j'y appose ma signature.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition signed by literally hundreds of people from the community of Timmins in regard to cuts at the Extendicare nursing home in Schumacher, and also at the Golden Manor in regard to nursing care. It's entitled Fighting for Our Rights. It reads as follows:

"Please help us send a message to our government by signing our petition to stop cuts to nursing staff in nursing homes. Hopefully this petition will make a better life for the sick and the elderly people.

"Sick people are not asking to be sick. People at nursing homes are in need of special care.

"There are many disadvantages with the cuts in nursing staff that are to be made in the future. Disabled people will end up suffering more because they will not be getting the care they should have. Lack of proper care could lead to depression in some patients.

"At this moment, nurses have difficulty to keep up with their duties because there are so many sick patients in nursing homes. With the proposed cuts, the nurses who will be left working will get exhausted from rushing too much, which could lead to accidents. Furthermore, nurses will end up on sick leave because of stress and pressure.

"Just think of how these cuts would affect your family in need of special care."

It's signed by some 400 or 500 people within the communities of Timmins and Schumacher, and I sign the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence to the government of the province of Ontario."

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition in regard to the current child care crisis in Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Tory government has decided to replace our current child care system with one that lacks compassion and common sense and is fraught with many dangerous consequences; and

"Whereas if our present provincial government is sincere in getting people back to work, they should recognize the value of the child care component of the Jobs Ontario program and acknowledge the validity of the wage subsidy to child care workers,

"We, therefore, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care workers of our Parkdale and High Park communities urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend their plans to implement cuts to our present child care programs across our province and restore funding to their previous levels."

I've affixed my signature to this document.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by delegates to the weekend conference of the Ontario provincial council of the United Food and Commercial Workers, where Hamiltonian Maureen McCarthy was elected president of that provincial body. The petition reads as follows:

"To Premier Harris:

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

"We 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."

On behalf of my colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I present a petition to the Legislative Assembly concerning drinking and driving.

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada; and

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash; and

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders; and

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences; and

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

I affix my signature to this.

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 to it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition signed by quite a few hundred people from the communities of Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Cochrane. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and critical social services; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programming; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services for the people they serve; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government in the province of Ontario."

I sign this petition.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government is planning to make significant changes to the delivery and governance of education in this province; and

"Whereas we as parents believe that school councils should play an important role in education, with clearly defined responsibilities limited to their particular school communities; and

"Whereas we as ratepayers are extremely disturbed that consideration is being given to abolish school boards and eliminate decision-making by locally elected representatives;

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the present structure of school boards within the province of Ontario continue to have a major role in governance of the schools to deal with broad policies as advocates for the students in their community, to provide cost-efficient educational services and to be directly accountable to the parents and local ratepayers."

I sign this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 106,

An Act respecting the financing of local government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Shall the report be received and adopted? It is agreed.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? It's agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 99,

An Act to secure the financial stability of the compensation system for injured workers, to promote the prevention of injury and disease in Ontario workplaces and to revise the Workers' Compensation Act and make related amendments to other acts / Projet de loi 99, Loi assurant la stabilité financière du régime d'indemnisation des travailleurs blessés, favorisant la prévention des lésions et des maladies dans les lieux de travail en Ontario et révisant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm most delighted to join in the so-called debate we've had arising out of the fundamental principles of Bill 99.

Interjection.

Mr Hastings: I know the member for Cochrane South doesn't want to hear too much of what would take him off the leftist cant he's usually got his mind trapped in.

Both critics and speakers of both opposition parties have started out on the fundamental premise that there really isn't a financial crisis involving the Workers' Compensation Board. That's like trying to imagine that there isn't a provincial deficit or debt.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You have it exaggerated, though.

Mr Hastings: Exaggerated or just a little bit, the reality is that there is a fiscal crisis involving the Workers' Compensation Board. How can we say that? When you have more funds going out than you have coming in, I would assume that is out of financial kilter, that things aren't in balance. I know to the members opposite it wouldn't mean much in terms of money, but it's a little over $10.7 billion. To members on this side, in the government, that is an enormous amount of money in terms of what is owing if at midnight tonight all outstanding debts of the WCB had to be paid off.

That would be all the pensions outstanding that had to be capitalized, that would be all the benefits that would be owing as of midnight tonight to injured workers who, unfortunately, got hurt on the job, and any other costs related to health care costs, particularly in the area of back problems.

The members of the opposition say, "You're again attacking injured workers." If that were true, it would seem to me they have failed to really appreciate the special significance of the cost of what is, in terms of the people at the board and people in the insurance industry, the rehabilitation industry and the medical community, an unfunded liability.

I don't think the members of the opposition have really taken into account that if you fail to deal with the problem of the unfunded liability, you are in effect making your own agency, that is there to deal with getting people back to work who unfortunately had a problem in the workplace -- you are not dealing with the financials of the agency to protect people in the future who may unfortunately get hurt in the workplace, either through the traditional definition of a workplace injury or through the more prolonged and accumulated problems related to occupational health and safety.

We might as well face reality and deal with the fundamental fact that we must approach and try to reduce the unfunded liability.

Usually, people who want to downplay the significance of this have accepted, in the past, the assumptions of the WCB financial people that the outstanding liability would be completely eliminated by 2014. But I think that particular outcome is rather optimistic and perhaps pretty rosy, because it would depend on economic growth between 1997 and 2014 that would have to be a terribly robust economy. It seems to me rather unrealistic, in my estimation, to expect that you're going to have an economic growth rate of about 4% to 5% for the next 17 years.

You may get some types of that rate of growth in some of those years, but it is extremely unrealistic to expect you're going to get it every year. If we don't look at the economics of business cycles, accept that there are such things, then you're going to have a problem ever getting this unfunded liability down.

The next problem I would like to focus on is why this government believes we must get some balance into a new Workers' Compensation Board, an insurance agency that will deal with the fundamentals of workplace accidents and occupational health and safety. This is something that is traditionally denied by the two opposition parties. I haven't seen them comment to any great extent on the proposed reforms that are going to come into place in terms of customer service in the new Workplace Health and Safety Agency and in the new insurance agency, formerly the board.

As most members in this House know, and members who aren't here who were here years ago, the history of the old WCB in terms of performing its obligations to injured workers is not the most satisfactory or one of those agencies on which you would place an excellent, five-star hotel type of rating for its service in dealing with injured or rehabilitated workers.

Most MPPs in this House recognize, whatever party they belong to, that the old WCB does not have a good record in dealing promptly with injured workers' injuries, whether it be the back type of problem, back recurrence, or total disability by somebody having a tragic accident in the workplace, who may even bleed to death. There does not appear to be, except in the rare instance, a great promptness, a great urgency to deal with each and every claim as it comes in.

When we as MPPs have to intervene, when injured workers or rehabilitated workers who haven't been able to get a job in the workplace come back to us, they are absolutely frustrated with the existing system in terms of how they get response.

That is one of the issues in the new reorganization that I'm hopeful will lead to better service, particularly when you link up a claims adjudicator, a nurse case manager and a customer service person at the start of the filing of a claim. That customer service rep, as I understand, will interface not only with the injured worker whose claim has been reported and has to be investigated if there are outstanding problems of circumstances, but will also interface with that injured worker's employer.

In that regard, I believe we need to have that kind of interface in place to get some better customer service, excellence and values into the new organization. If we do not, we're going to continue to have the same type of prolonged slowness or even non-response to injured workers' claims, whether they be simple or complex claims. I have certainly had more than my share of WCB claims in terms of trying to get resolution of the problems.

Concomitant to trying to get better customer service to injured workers, rehabilitated workers, is the whole issue, in my estimation, of language. Most members of this House, if they read communications from the WCB, the correspondence they get, I'm sure are sometimes as baffled as I am about the type of language that is used in complex cases of injured workers that the old WCB --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The letters start with "Dear John." Which part don't you understand?

Mr Hastings: I know the member for Cochrane South wants to perpetuate the old system where you line up and you can say, as I've heard most of the members of the third party say, "What do you do as an MPP? We have a backlog of hundreds and hundreds of cases of WCB and we really work on them but we never really resolve them." There's a sort of comfortable status quo to their approach to trying to resolve workers' claims dealing with workers' compensation issues, rehabilitation issues. They'd prefer to have correspondence going back and forth. I have seen this from a rather intimate perspective. It's a pattern that has been going on for many years.

Regardless, when you look at the actual type of correspondence and language coming from the old agency, there is a certain degree of assumption that you need a grade 13 or OAC completion of language to immediately grasp some of the more complex medical-rehabilitation language that you will find in these particular letters. The level of the language is in some instances, I believe, a deterrent to injured workers who have a legitimate appeal, prompting them not to appeal their particular concern immediately if they had their claim denied.

The language level in a survey 25 years ago certainly ascertained that you needed a grade 13 education to understand the level of communication you would find in letters of those days. I'm sure that today you will find that sort of problem, and that's one of the things I'm hoping the customer service people of the WCB will consciously set about trying to resolve.

Another thing we need to focus upon that the members of the opposition seem either to have ignored deliberately or accidentally is when they argue that there is no fiscal crisis. The previous government said that if we'd only left the measures in place that we had -- a tripartite-type board, the usual approaches to dealing with vocational rehabilitation, slow response -- in time the fiscal crisis would end and everything would be okay. In point of fact, that's not going to be the situation. If we do not get our costs under control, there will not be a viable, self-sustaining WCB or the newer name of the agency to deal with future injured workers.

There is, I think, a sense of fundamental difference in philosophy that we hear from the other two parties. We usually hear today the word "right," the right of the injured worker to compensation. If a person has an accident in the workplace, and the medical evidence, witnesses or employer data and medical data all join together to confirm that an accident occurred, then naturally that injured worker ought to get paid promptly and fairly and quickly. But what we find in the members of both opposition parties is a sense of that right being extended to an entitlement.

We have heard from previous speakers to date on Bill 99, particularly with respect to the inflation adjustments that were made in the mid-1980s by the previous Davis administration and carried on by the Liberal Party when they were the government between 1985 and 1990 and by the NDP in 1990 to 1995. That is again a confusion of language on what used to be called at that point in time disability awards.

You will hear from people opposite and you have heard from injured workers, through no fault of their own, that they have picked up on this lingo: "How do you expect us, as injured workers, to live on a pension, a disability award?" at that time possibly awarded in 1982 or earlier, or even up to 1993 or 1994, where they were making perhaps $30,000 gross. When you reduced all the benefits out, they were netting down to about $300 or $400 a week. The degree of disability of the injury was possibly 10% or 15%.

So they ended up perhaps getting $80 to $120 to $150, depending on the type of injury the worker had unfortunately incurred. They were given the encouragement that once a vocational rehabilitation supplement had been eliminated, for whatever set of reasons, they were supposed to live on $150 or $200.

Obviously anybody in their right mind would know that the pension, the disability award, the non-economic loss or the future economic loss, the new terms that have come into vogue since changes to the act in 1993, really were never there to provide a level of living. They were simply there as a bridge. You can't live on $180 or $200 or $80 a month. Anybody knows that when they look at the cost of living, whether it's in rural Ontario or in an urban area.

But usually the politicals of the day want to go about using this terminology, that a disability award is in fact a pension for life that you can live on, and that to me is where we have so much confusion and misunderstanding about what the role of workers' compensation and the new agency is about. It is not about entitlement. It is not about entitlement in terms of a continuing income security program, which members opposite usually want to put into the public dialogue about this issue.

If you're talking about a particular injured worker who is totally disabled, paralysed from an industrial accident, then naturally that entitlement is correct and natural and they ought to have sufficient amounts of money to live on for the rest of their born life if they can't work. But for a large proportion of injured workers today who are partially disabled, they were always given the lingo that you could get a pension and somehow you could live off it. I don't understand why this particular intrusion of language has been brought into the public policy debate, because it completely confuses people, completely misleads them.

We will, I'm sure, hear from the critics that somehow or other my remarks are to be construed as another attack on injured workers, which is absolute nonsense. What we're dealing with here is using real language, as we ought to find in the act, as to what the requirements are of somebody who unfortunately incurs an industrial accident; what they can expect in the new regime; how they will be paid; what their obligations are in terms of the role of the injured worker to respond in a cooperative, factual manner on supplying health data in trying to inject the philosophy of a rapid response return to work.

That's the real objective of this legislation, in addition to the prevention of workplace health and safety problems in the first place.

In the old system, adjudication of the claim was the top priority. We now have an opportunity, through this legislation, I believe, to turn that philosophy around so that we get it right at the start: workplace prevention of injuries on the job. If unfortunately you get hurt on the job, the person who incurs that misfortune gets dealt with in a fair and just way and also has vocational rehabilitation as a means of getting them back to work, either in their old job through workplace modification, through training or through some bridging, but to get them back to work and not keep them on the compensation system for years and years and years.

That has been the philosophy of all three parties in the past.

I think at a minimal level of agreement, they would agree that we need to change the priorities of the old WCB, the new agency, to get the top priorities in place: Don't have an accident to start with, so you need all the types of backup to prevent that, to create that environment; then you require fast adjudication, as Sir William Meredith allowed in the original establishment of the old WCB in 1914; and finally, a fast, rapid response to work, to get them back, to get them active, not to have them sit at home and become, as we see in so many instances today, particularly with respect to back accidents, depressives, manic-depressives, all kinds of psychoses that the studies clearly show of a psychological, psychiatric or medical nature.

The longer you have an injured worker out of the workplace, out of their employment, the greater the problems in getting them back to work, either in their old workplace or in a new work environment.

For these reasons and many others, I am very glad to see this government come forward with a strong, solid bill that changes the philosophy we've had for so many years in so many of these areas and gets us on to the right track in dealing with injured workers.

Finally, let me say with respect to the attack on injured workers and the $6 billion we constantly hear as a refrain, if we look at the Liberal red book or their program of the 1995 election, they said the WCB was a mess. It needed major corrective changes. We are making those changes. Above all, it seems to me they have to agree that we are on the right track, because in that context they said that under the old WCB and its premium rates the climate for new jobs to be created in this economic environment was completely uncompetitive, not only for people who had never been injured but for those who were already injured.

That's one of the major challenges we face in balancing the cost of compensation with providing fair and just compensation for injured workers and those who are being rehabilitated in the new system. Therefore, I think this is a significant new beginning for changing the orientation, for changing the philosophy we've had for the last 40 to 50 years of seeing the WCB and its successor agencies as purely a supplier of income security. They are not that. They are a bridge from what happened before to where that person will end up in the future. We have failed many injured workers with the existing status quo.

That's why I believe this new, challenging Bill 99 will bring us many of the changes that will produce a better environment for workers' compensation in Ontario.

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

Mr Patten: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and his analysis; I found it very interesting. He began his discussion, I suppose, criticizing the opposition's critique addressing the unfunded liability. It seems to me that every party had said they were concerned about the unfunded liability. What we were concerned about was the manner in which it is being addressed. We believe the bill shows a strong bias towards the employers, because in addressing the unfunded liability, what they're doing is doing it on the backs of the injured employees. That's where the money is coming from.

He goes on to say that it was in deep debt for many years. I notice he didn't mention that in 1995-96 there was I think a $500-million surplus. That showed that no, we on this side of the House don't believe that the crisis the government talks about is as severe as they state.

Yes, it should be addressed. Yes, there are refinements to make. Even if the government had come in with some kind of a sharing between the employers and the workers or the people on pension and the people on benefits, you might have had a little bit of sympathy. But all of it, $6 billion worth, is coming from the injured employees. That's what we find totally unfair, because the whole program is to help them to get back to work, to help them be treated, and if they are not and if they are totally disabled, that they get the kind of support from which they can live with justice and with some degree of dignity as they face their future.

He also said we didn't address some of the areas of reform of the bill. I would point out to him that indeed we did. We have some concerns about the Occupational Disease Panel and we worry about its independence. We also worry about the appeal tribunal having to live under and not being able to question the policies of the board overall but only being able to comment on what has already been said.

Mr Bisson: After that speech, all I have to ask is, where's Ed Philip when we need him, when we had somebody in that riding who actually understood this issue?

Let's set a couple of things straight. The member across the way is trying to argue that somehow the government is right in saying there is a fiscal crisis within the Workers' Compensation Board. Let me just put it this way, to just cut to the point; I've got two minutes to make an argument that's about a five-minute speech.

If an insurance company in the province of Ontario today had all its insured people come up and want their money all at once -- in other words, everybody who had purchased life insurance died on the same day, 12 o'clock tonight, everybody who had disability insurance either for a mortgage payment, truck payment or income replacement, if all of that was to come to an end tonight, 12 o'clock -- that insurance company would have an unfunded liability. It's no different with the Workers' Compensation Board.

We as a government, under the Bob Rae government, 1990-95, accepted that yes, the board was going in the wrong direction, that their unfunded liability was increasing. We as a government in 1993 -- and recognized long before that -- passed legislation that turned that trend around. Since then, the Workers' Compensation Board has been posting a surplus every year. The unfunded liability is coming down, not going up.

So when the member tries to argue this whole thing about a crisis, it really is like the Minister of Education trying to create a crisis in education in order to prop up their argument that they've got to make the changes they want to within the workers' compensation system.

I don't have enough time to respond in detail; I will later on during my speech. But I wish the member would do his homework before starting his speech.

The other thing he talked about was the language of the board and how the FEL and NEL awards in 1993 got everything wrong. FELs and NELs came under Bill 162 in 1989 under the Liberal government. So I wish you'd do your research before you get up and start talking about something you clearly don't know a lot about.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My compliments to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for his words and his contribution to the debate. He spoke quite eloquently at the beginning about the day-to-day problems with service at the WCB. It's something that all of us as members have come to know as certainly a problem at the WCB. I know that under the new management it is getting better. I think this bill, Bill 99, will help speed up some of those processes to help that along.

The member also talked about the problem with the unfunded liability. The members opposite seemed to indicate that it wasn't that big a problem. He talked about comparing it to an insurance company. If the WCB was an insurance company regulated under the Insurance Act, the federal superintendent of insurance would have appointed a liquidator to seize its assets as soon as the unfunded liability had been incurred.

If the WCB was a pension benefit plan regulated under the Pension Benefits Act, the superintendent of pensions would already have ordered the implementation of a strategy to retire the unfunded liability; failure to do so would result in the winding down of the plan.

By all measures -- the several others which I've mentioned before in the House, for instance, Ontario's 42% funding ratio being the second-worst in Canada -- the unfunded liability is a problem, it is a reality and does need to be dealt with. I think the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale should be complimented for noticing that as well as complimented for talking about the very human side of service at the WCB for injured workers.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I want to acknowledge the members' statements about the situation and say that I think all parties agree there have been problems, and parties have responded in different ways. There has been ample debate about the way to solve those problems.

Where we

part company is that in our view the problem of the unfunded liability can be dealt with in a reasonable amount of time without necessarily affecting injured workers the way the government's proposals do, particularly pensioners, whose income is extremely limited.

The previous government had a number of ideas around this that they began to implement. We presented a set of ideas that we believed would deal with the unfunded liability without cutting benefits to injured workers.

The question isn't whether or not we deal with the problem of the unfunded liability, the problem of the management of the board itself, the problem of the claims system, the adjudication system; the issue is how you go about it.

Indeed the member took some mirth in saying, well, you know, we said something different in the House than we did in the last campaign, which, number one, we don't agree with, but I'd point out to the member that what was in the final bill, Bill 99, didn't reflect even a percentage of what was in Mr Jackson's report. Indeed, the minister who began the process was removed from the file and the Minister of Labour took over. There was a perception, I think, in the government that perhaps Mr Jackson had gone soft. Having travelled the province, having heard injured workers, the government thought he wasn't going to be tough enough.

Well, you've got your bill. We think there's a better way.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has two minutes to respond.

Mr Hastings: I appreciate the remarks from the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Windsor-Walkerville. At least these two members seem to have some basic understanding of the problems facing us in the new workplace environment.

I read over and looked at and listened to the member for Ottawa Centre's remarks, and I thought he made some fairly balanced and realistic proposals from the perspective of being a constructive critic. However, I don't find that with the member for Cochrane South, who seems to want to perpetually deny that there's any problem on the financial side; things as they were going were pretty good. They had a royal commission which ate up about $2 million but didn't come to any specific conclusions except to extend generally in its mid-term report what was already going on.

The final thing I'd like to say is that the member for Cochrane South seems to think that if you just keep going the way things are, you'll eventually work out everything. The people who are involved and mired in such an intractable existing system just have to have tremendous patience and if they just have tremendous patience -- or maybe if they go away even, that would be better.

It seems to me that if he really understood the injured workers from Etobicoke-Rexdale -- a good number of them came to me after the last election with the problems that had supposedly been already resolved, and I was absolutely shocked that we would have these because, as he portrays reality, everything's okay the way it is and there are no problems with this system.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Duncan: I'm pleased to stand today and speak on Bill 99, the new Workers' Compensation Act, the Workers' Compensation Reform Act as it's known, and it is in fact a new act. It's a complete rewrite of the Workers' Compensation Act and workers' compensation law in this province as we've known it.

The bill attempts to do a number of things. The bill attempts to deal with a perceived crisis in the unfunded liability. It attempts to deal with a number of issues that are viewed by the government -- and I think many injured workers as well as employers -- that the compensation system itself has not served anyone's interest, that there have been problems. Repeated governments over time, since 1914, have had to address the issues of compensation, fairness of compensation, the proper management of compensation in this province, and repeated governments have had some success, some failures.

So this particular bill represents a great departure in the evolution of workers' compensation law in this province and a great departure from the principles of fairness of compensation.

I want to begin my statement today by putting the bill in a context of both the government's overall agenda and the government's labour agenda. There is no doubt and no question that the government is fulfilling its commitments on WCB. The government in opposition had a 21-point plan around reform and what we see in this bill largely reflects those realities.

We said at the time and still believe that the so-called crisis in WCB could be dealt with in an effective fashion, the unfunded liability eliminated and the administration and management of the compensation system in Ontario could be reformed without serious harm to the benefits enjoyed by injured workers. "Enjoyed" is probably too strong a word, because indeed if one speaks to a pensioner, somebody speaks to somebody on temporary disability, temporary benefits, one knows that the life of an injured worker, the livelihood of an injured worker is not one that we would want.

The compensation act that we see today, that we've had in Ontario till now, was amended by the last Tory government in this province through Bill 101. That bill was introduced by the Davis government and it was implemented to a large extent by the Peterson Liberal government. Bill 101 was a response to a situation that was occurring in Ontario in the 1970s and early 1980s. Professor Paul Weiler was appointed by the Davis government to review the compensation system and its shortcomings in this province. Professor Weiler did extensive work over a four- or five-year period of time and reported back to the Davis government in what has become known as the Weiler report.

That report, among other things, recommended that we go to a system where we pay injured workers based on net income, it created a recommendation around the Occupational Disease Panel and it recommended a number of other reforms which were implemented and passed into law by Bill 101.

This bill effectively undoes those reforms, reforms that were brought in by a previous Conservative administration, reforms that were brought in to recognize a system that at the time had serious shortcomings. It also attempts to change a number of other issues that were dealt with post-Weiler. But with reference to the government's overall labour agenda, it is apparent in this bill, as it was apparent in Bill 49, apparent in Bill 7, that this government does not respect working people or their representatives.

The government's agenda is one-sided. We said during the debate on Bill 7 that the government's labour agenda would create a climate of labour instability in this province the like of which we had never seen. We said during that debate that labour law in this province has evolved over time, it has evolved in a number of ways, and I must say, it has never evolved to the complete satisfaction of either labour or management. We have evolved our labour law. Over time, we have had a climate of relative labour stability in this province that has contributed to a climate that, despite ups and downs over time, historically has been conducive to investment.

Indeed, one could argue that until the advent of the Common Sense Revolution and this government, Ontario had evolved a very mature system of collective bargaining, a system that saw fewer days lost to strikes and other job actions than most other comparable jurisdictions. It was a system that recognized the partners in our economy. It recognized that it takes the application of labour and capital to make our economy grow. Throughout time, with varying degrees of success, we have evolved those laws.

Then along came this government that was intent on upsetting the apple cart, on destabilizing labour markets, and most important, a government that wasn't prepared to acknowledge the contribution that working people make in our communities, in our neighbourhoods and in our overall economy. So we tipped the scales and we created a climate that I submit is less conducive to investment, particularly when the economy goes into a cyclical downturn, and we know that will happen.

Bill 99, put in the context of the Common Sense Revolution and the government's overall agenda, is an attack on working people, an attack on the principles of collective bargaining and an attack on the kinds of economic institutions that in our view, if not kept in proper balance, will lead to slower economic growth or indeed no economic growth.

What has happened since Bill 7? We have seen what has happened since Bill 7: more days lost to strikes and work actions, more grievances being filed, more job actions. People don't take that seriously on the other side. They think they're winning the war, and they see it as a war unfortunately, instead of seeing the labour market and a climate for job creation that recognizes that labour harmony is an important component of economic growth. So the government has created a situation not just through this bill but through all of its actions to date that says: "We don't care about working people.

We don't believe they have a place at the table and we don't believe their interests should be treated fairly." Successive governments historically have attempted to deal with that balance, and successive governments have to a large extent been successful.

We think that over time this government's labour agenda will be proven to be foolhardy, that ultimately the climate that will result, that is resulting, that has resulted from its agenda will in fact harm job creation, harm our ability to find work for all the people of this province.

Indeed, if one looks at communities in this province where there is a history of strong, stable labour relations, one sees that there are fewer days lost to strikes, fewer days lost to job action. The government doesn't recognize that; the government wants to return to a completely confrontational system of labour-management relations. Bill 99, I submit, is yet another spoke in that wheel, a wheel that will come off the car because it fails to recognize the long-term significance and import of labour, both organized and unorganized, to the healthy functioning of our economy.

I want to deal with the current compensation climate in the province of Ontario today. We know that today over 200,000 Ontarians are on long-term WCB disability; 372,000 WCB claims were made last year, 372,000 claims in one year. The government in this bill suggests that somehow it has an agenda to improve the health and safety climate in this province. Nothing, I submit, could be further from the truth. Time and again, the government's rhetoric is betrayed by its actions. Time and again, the government has said one thing and done another.

The spin doctors, the gurus, the whiz kids spin it like they care about health and safety, yet they set the health and safety clock back, I respectfully submit, generations.

Compensation in the absence of enforceable health and safety standards, an inspectorate, doesn't make any sense. So while it says it wants to save money on compensation, it refuses to invest in health and safety. But I guess we ought not to be surprised. This seems to be a consistent theme in what the government does.

Let's look at health care. The government says it's making the tough cuts and reinvesting. The reality is not the same; the reality is quite the opposite. While hospitals are being closed in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor, the reinvestments that have been contemplated have not been happening.

I take my own community by way of example, a community which in 1992 voluntarily set out on a path to consolidate its health care and reinvest the savings in what we hoped would be a better way. The fact is that we are in the process of closing two hospitals. Annual savings are estimated at approximately $22 million and our reconfiguration document, our Win-Win document, contemplated a capital investment in excess of $100 million in order to make our health care system state-of-the-art, in order to make our health care system responsive to the needs of the first part of the 21st century, in order to ensure that the people in my community have access to the finest services available.

That plan was on course until June 1995. Then this government came along and said, "We will not reinvest in capital." They cut it in half; they said $48 million. That's why we still don't have the promised MRI operating, and that's why we don't have the paediatric psychiatric beds that were contemplated, and that's why the two remaining emergency rooms in Windsor are overburdened