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

June 1, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L018a - Mon 1 Jun 1998 / Lun 1 Jun 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

BRENNAN HOUSE

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

BANK MERGERS

RECYCLING IN HASTINGS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

INJURED WORKERS

IRISH PEACE ACCORD

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

TUITION FEES

ABORTION

VISITOR

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

AMATEUR SPORT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DRIVERS' LICENCES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TIRE RECYCLING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

INJURED WORKERS

ABORTION

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

PROTECTION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ABORTION

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

HOME CARE

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

SCHOOL BOARDS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

OPPOSITION DAY

TUITION FEES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent of the House for permission to wear the purple ribbon today in commemoration of the second anniversary of the death of Theresa Vince.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Mrs McLeod: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm also wondering if I could have unanimous consent of the House for all three parties to make statements in commemoration of the second anniversary of the death of Theresa Vince.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today on the first day of Seniors' Month in Ontario to raise an issue of importance to all members of this Legislature. Elder abuse is on the rise in Ontario. According to a study recently released by the Toronto family service association, our seniors are increasingly subjected to abuse by their family, friends and caregivers in the form of physical and psychological abuse, as well as financial abuse, sexual abuse and neglect.

We Liberals have long been saying that the consequence of hospital cutbacks, lack of nursing home beds and shortage of community-based supports is an increased burden being placed on the average family. When seniors are discharged from hospital quicker and sicker with no long-term-care beds available to them and limited home care services, families, many of whom are already struggling to cope, have no choice but to take them in.

If this option is not available, senior couples are often left to fend for themselves with minimal supports. It has been found that abuse by a partner is also becoming more prevalent among senior couples, and that older women are more frequently the victims.

The other unfortunate reality in today's Ontario is that the abused women's support services that had been established across the province have been threatened by government cutbacks to shelter and support services.

I call on this government to recognize how its policies are exacerbating, not easing, the pressures faced by the families and caregivers. Hospital cuts, bed shortages, nurse layoffs and insufficient funds for home care are not the answer. Improved health services and adequate funding for community-based supports are.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): We're all familiar with the Kidney Foundation of Canada and we respect the hard work they do, the advocacy they perform and the assistance they provide to sufferers of kidney disease and public education.

The Niagara district

chapter has not inappropriately pointed out the looming crisis over Niagara region when it comes to dialysis services. We know that Hotel Dieu Hospital is scheduled for possible shutdown by this government - I know what it talks about; it talks about the merger of St Catharines General and Hotel Dieu, but what that means at the end of the day is that one or the other is going to be gone.

Hotel Dieu is at capacity when it comes to dialysis treatment. I've been through their unit several times. It's outstanding work and a whole lot of commitment by a whole lot of qualified, trained, competent staff. Unfortunately, because it's at capacity, Niagara residents have had to travel out of the region to Stoney Creek and beyond to receive dialysis services at, among other places, private operators' private clinics. The problem is that those are at capacity now as well.

There's nobody left to pick up the excess demand that's being generated in Niagara region. Niagara region is special because it has an aging population. We know from the profile of sufferers of kidney disease and demand for dialysis that it's older generations that require it.

I agree there is a crisis looming in Niagara. This government has abandoned public health care, and very specifically seniors and sufferers of kidney disease in Niagara region and across this province.

BRENNAN HOUSE

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Traditionally every June a group of Hamilton lawyers make bicycle trips around a Great Lake to raise money for charity. Once again, the Biking Barristers this year are taking to the road in support of the Good Shepherd Centre's Brennan House.

This year, Dennis Reardon and Terry Shaughnessy are joined by David Sherman in their quest to help children. The Miles for Smiles campaign has in past years cycled around Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and from Quebec City to Hamilton in order to boost awareness of this worthy cause. In 1998, the campaign is being generously supported by Guinness Imports, Slainte Irish Pub and Rheem Canada as the Biking Barristers ride around Ireland from June 19 to June 29 in search of Father Brennan's roots.

Brennan House is a service dedicated to homeless children, some of whom are in conflict with the law or are otherwise estranged from their families for a variety of unfortunate reasons. The goal of Brennan House is to assist these children to thrive and achieve an independent lifestyle. While some invariably fall through the cracks of society, for others Brennan House is an indispensable part of their road to success.

I wish to recognize the Biking Barristers - Dennis Reardon, Terry Shaughnessy and David Sherman - and the Slainte Irish Pub in Hamilton for their substantial contributions to children in need in Hamilton and area.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Today is the day that the Ontario disability support program comes into effect. The ODSP is a program that has met with some approval from the disabled community and has by and large received qualified support in this House. However, throughout the hearings into Bill 142 and from activists in the community we have heard indications about problems that we can expect to encounter.

It is clear from a reading of the regulations, which were only released publicly yesterday, that the government is continuing its campaign to restrict access to essential services to the most needy by making them jump through loopholes to meet eligibility requirements. Whether persons with disabilities are better off under the new program is something we have yet to see. The devil remains in the details.

Recently, the Ontario Dental Association stepped into the debate by publicizing its concern about the government's new dental policy for the disabled. In its drive to reduce costs, the government is now moving away from a strategy of prevention to a system that restricts access to dental care for the most vulnerable. Pre-authorization will now be required that will see people having to wait for treatment while an administrator with no dental credentials decides over a period of days whether an emergency exists that warrants treatment.

Other arbitrary restrictions on services are going to further compromise the special needs of children and people with disabilities. Problems like these mean that our attention to the human costs -

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

BANK MERGERS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Last week, the member for Dovercourt and I joined our friend NDP MP Lorne Nystrom, who was on a tour decrying the bank merger mania that has taken hold in this country. We have tremendous concerns about this merger and I wanted to speak to it.

Canada's Big Six banks control 72%, or $700 billion, of all deposit-taking financial assets in the country and 70% of the investment brokerage industry, all but one of the large trust companies and a majority of deposits, consumer credit, small business and mortgage lending.

We're talking about billions of dollars that are going to be in the hands of a very few people who, I can tell you, are not going to spread that kind of generosity around. I can guarantee the bank presidents are going to earn big bucks. The bank tellers, however, are going to be the lowest paid women in this financial sector. That I can guarantee you will be the result of the bank merger.

We urge the people of Ontario to fight these bank mergers and we want to try to convince the federal government to do several things. First of all, allow consumer intervention in bank practices; establish a membership-funded, broadly based financial consumer organization; ensure that the boards of directors have better representation; and urge the federal government to institute a community reinvestment act so as to finance the public -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. The member for Quinte.

RECYCLING IN HASTINGS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate the Centre and South Hastings Waste Service Board for their achievement in reducing the amount of waste per person per year sent to landfill.

For their efforts, the Centre and South Hastings Waste Service Board was recently awarded a gold award for their municipality waste reductions by the Recycling Council of Ontario. This honour is given to communities that send fewer than 150 kilograms of waste per person per year to landfill. I am very proud to say that the recycling program in my riding has reduced annual waste to 126.79 kilograms per person.

The award was presented in Toronto on April 23 to general manager Rick Clow. Mr Clow said, "The board has to give a lot of credit to the people of centre and south Hastings. We wouldn't have won this award without their considerable participation in the Blue Box 2000, backyard composting and household hazardous waste collection programs."

I want to congratulate Mr Clow and the employees of the Centre and South Hastings Waste Service Board and to echo my thanks to the residents of centre and south Hastings and the riding of Quinte, who continue to make our community a model for others to follow in the field of waste management.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): A press conference was held today to recognize the second anniversary of the death of Theresa Vince. Theresa Vince was murdered by her employer following at least 18 months of sexual harassment in her workplace.

Jackie Carr, Theresa Vince's daughter, was at the press conference and she described the stress and the misery of her mother's life in the year and a half before her death. You could feel the anguish of a daughter in knowing that her mother's complaints had been ignored and that if she had just been taken seriously, her life might have been saved.

In Chatham, this first week in June is Sexual Harassment Week, ordered by the inquest into Theresa Vince's death. But remembering her death will not be enough to prevent this from happening again. Jackie Carr said clearly that her mother's death should teach us that sexual harassment belongs on the continuum of sexual violence. Why, then, has the Harris government refused two years in a row to make this first week of June Sexual Harassment Week across the province?

Why, when the government joined with the Human Rights Commission to launch a public awareness campaign to fight sexual harassment, did they not see fit to involve the front-line rape crisis centres in the campaign? And why was there not enough funding for this initiative to run a television campaign? This government has spent $3.5 million on its education propaganda campaign alone, but they couldn't find the money for a significant campaign against sexual harassment.

I wonder, does another woman have to die like Theresa Vince before sexual harassment will be taken seriously? Surely it is not just in Chatham that we should remember and learn from Theresa Vince's death.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It's with pleasure and pride that I rise today and acknowledge that today is Injured Workers Day. Along with my colleague from Dovercourt and our leader, Howard Hampton, we marched today with the demonstrators from the front of the Legislature over to Hart House Theatre, where we saw the first showing of a new documentary called Myths at Work, which outlines exactly this government's continuing attack on injured workers.

We know that under Bill 99, which took effect January 1 of this year, this government has cut by 5% the amount of net income that injured workers receive if they're hurt on the job. We know that you also cut by 5% the premiums your corporate friends pay into the WCB.

In fact, you've changed the name itself: You've taken out the word "workers" and you've taken out the word "compensation." It cost you a million dollars just to make that name change, the same million dollars that you cut by eliminating the Occupational Disease Panel, a world-renowned panel that identified the linkages between exposures in the workplace and illnesses and fatal accidents that injured workers face. You killed that for the $1 million so that you could change the name and lay the groundwork to bring in a privatized insurance scheme for injured workers.

Injured workers were here today because they're not going to forget in the elections coming up.

IRISH PEACE ACCORD

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Periodically on the world stage an event occurs which places the spotlight on the true value of the democratic principles we too often take for granted in this great province and in this House. Democracy is a principle which was born and defended with the lifeblood of millions of men, women and children throughout the world.

On May 22, 1998, a momentous historical event occured in Ireland and Northern Ireland. The democratic process was used to bring an end to a civil war which had been raging for over three decades, which had resulted in the deaths of thousands and the wounding and maiming of countless others.

The historic vote on Friday, May 22, broke voter turnout records in Northern Ireland, with a turnout of over 81% and over 71% of them voting in favour of peace. In Ireland, an overwhelming majority of 94.4% of the voters backed the peace accord.

This peace initiative is a joyous occasion for tens of thousands of Ontarians of Irish descent who have lived in the constant fear that the lives of their families were in danger in the war zones.

I am sure every member in this House joins me in sending our congratulations and our warmest wishes to the courageous leaders of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the British government who worked so diligently to bring about this exciting new Irish peace accord.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements by the ministry? Sorry, any motions?

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mr Agostino and Mr Colle exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business, and that, notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 14.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on June 1, 2 and 3, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Speaker, in compliance with the standing orders, I provided you with written notice of this earlier today. It's my understanding that is the appropriate procedure when a member feels that he or she has been somehow impeded in their duties as a member of the Legislature.

On Wednesday, May 27, 1998, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable John Snobelen, a question that goes to the heart of the events surrounding the death of Mr Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995. The minister referred that question to the Attorney General. The following day, in what can only be described as a premeditated attack on my character, the member for Lambton asked the Honourable John Snobelen a question about the same matter that I had asked the previous day.

This time the minister chose to answer the question and he and the member used the opportunity to attack my character. The minister said in the preplanned attack that my question "had the effect of inadvertently misleading the House," "must have been extremely poorly researched," "our research would find no basis in some of the substantive parts of the question." The member for Lambton said, "The member for Scarborough Agincourt is reckless with the truth."

In my opinion, this was a deliberate plan by at least two government members to impede my ability to do my duty of raising legitimate questions about the Ipperwash affair.

To further support my case, I would like to present evidence supporting my belief it was a planned and unfair attack on me.

First, I have reviewed my question in Hansard for May 27 and I stand by every word in my question.

Second, the minister implied that the letter I referred to was some obscure letter written in 1937 that the ministry had some difficulty finding. In fact, the letter and the correspondence around it is absolutely central to the Ipperwash affair.

Exhibit 1, which I have provided to you, Mr Speaker, and will provide to the House, is a memorandum from the Attorney General's ministry from October 1996, when the government dropped 43 Ipperwash-related charges against the first nation.

I draw your attention to the fifth paragraph, which has to do with the same correspondence I was talking about. It says:

"The crown has confirmed the existence of correspondence made in 1937 between the federal Indian Affairs branch and the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests which refers to `the old Indian cemetery, which...is located within the territory now being developed as a park' (referring to what is now Ipperwash Provincial Park). This documentation gives objective support for the reasonableness and the honesty of the accused's belief.

"Further, it has been clearly indicated by the Provincial Division judges at pre-trails that this defence will succeed in all instances when it is raised," the defence that there was evidence of a burial ground.

"Accordingly, this `colour of right' defence is of sufficient significance that the crown concludes that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. The crown therefore must withdraw all forcible detainer charges."

The third point I want to raise, Mr Speaker, is that Mr Snobelen said "the member for Scarborough-Agincourt...who indicated that there were some recent developments." I said no such thing. I did quote from the letter, which said, "When cleaning out the park recently, the engineer discovered an old Indian burial ground." That's from the correspondence in 1937.

The fourth point I raise is Mr Snobelen said: "This," the letter, "came to the attention of the provincial government in 1995, when the Liberal Minister of Native Affairs federally, Mr Irwin, shared it with the media. That's how it came to our attention." That's what Mr Snobelen said.

Exhibit 2, which I have provided you, shows that in fact as soon as the federal officials found the correspondence, they notified the province of its content even before they briefed the federal minister, and this is provincial evidence. This exhibit also shows that the Attorney General, Mr Harnick, discussed the matter with federal Minister Irwin a day before the federal government made a public statement. That's exhibit 2.

Further, as exhibit 3 shows, the provincial government acknowledges receiving the correspondence in 1937. It was the provincial government that was to take the action.

As you can see, Mr Speaker, this is a very serious matter. For the first time in over 100 years a first nations person is dead as a result of a land claim dispute. I ask you to review this matter of principle, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): On the same point of privilege, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to add our words of support to the request for you to review this matter. I strongly believe that the actions we saw unfold in the House last week were a breach of the member's privilege and that he raises important points. I would like to add to his information some disturbing news I have just been made aware of which I think is a further breach of rights and privileges of members of this House.

You will be aware, in the standing orders, Mr Speaker, of a provision under

section 124 which allows for a question to be referred to a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly for their review of up to 12 hours. Under that provision, members of the New Democratic Party caucus, members on the administration of justice committee and particularly the member for Welland-Thorold, have given notice that we would wish to proceed with a review of the Ipperwash matter at the administration of justice committee.

It has just recently been drawn to my attention that the government has chosen to refer Bill 15, a budget bill, to the administration of justice committee -

The Speaker: I am not going to say you're out of order, but I think it's a different point of order. What I'd like to do is tell the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that I will take his point of privilege under advisement and report back, and I will take yours as a different point of order. Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If I may simply continue from that point, we have been made aware that the government has referred Bill 15, a budget bill, to the administration of justice committee. As you will well know, it would have been the normal expectation of members of this Legislative Assembly that the budget bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

I read from the standing orders, the

section that sets out the roles of committees, "Standing committee on finance and economic affairs which is empowered to consider and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the fiscal and economic policies of the province and to which all related documents shall be deemed to have been referred immediately when the said documents are tabled."

Bill 15 is a budget bill and deals with the third phase of the government's tax cut, which is indeed a fiscal and economic policy on the part of the government, and I think it is reasonable to have expected it would have been referred to the finance and economic affairs committee.

My contention is that the government, in continuing to stonewall members of this Legislative Assembly from seeking information and full review and full disclosure on the matters involved in the Ipperwash events and the death of Dudley George, has purposely blocked the hearing of the

section 124 request on the Ipperwash inquiry at the committee on administration of justice.

You will know that the committee is not allowed to proceed with any

section 124 request if there is government business before that committee, and it is our contention that the matter of Bill 15 has been purposely referred to that committee to once again stonewall any attempt on the part of members of this Legislative Assembly from having disclosure on the matters related to Ipperwash.

We believe this is a breach of the privilege of the members and of their rights under the standing orders, particularly with respect to 124, and that it shows further disdain on the part of the government for the members of the Legislative Assembly and for our attempts to have full disclosure on the Ipperwash issue.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, with regard to the first point of order raised by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt -

The Speaker: I've dealt with that.

Hon Mr Sterling: I also dealt with it last week and I just want to reiterate my remarks -

The Speaker: Government House leader, I looked to you just to make comments on it. You said you weren't. So it's dealt with. I'm going to receive it. Perhaps you would deal with the one before us now.

Hon Mr Sterling: Fine.

Mr Speaker, an order to send Bill 15 to the committee on administration of justice is neither unprecedented nor out of order. It's not uncommon for bills to be sent to alternative committees in this Legislature. During the third session of our last Parliament, municipal affairs and housing had four bills.

They were sent to four different committees as follows: Bill 61, the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, went to the general government committee; Bill 94, the Metropolitan Toronto Reassessment Statute Law Act, went to the social development committee; Bill 163, the Planning and Municipal Statute LawAmendment Act, went to the administration of justice committee; Bill 198, the Municipal and Liquor Licensing Statute Law Amendment Act, went to the finance committee.

Time allocation motions suspend the general orders of the House and therefore their contents cannot be disputed where they contravene the general rules and practices. As you stated in your ruling of December 2, 1997: "Time allocation motions suspend the standing orders of the House. They suspend them, so whatever rules we have lived by up until this point in time, they're suspended, and inserted in their place is the time allocation order."

Sending Bill 15 to the committee on administration of justice is neither unprecedented nor out of order.

The Speaker: Frankly, I don't see it as being out of order; in fact I think it is in order. There are a million I could think of from the top of my head, examples I can cite where -

Interjection: Name them.

The Speaker: I can't name a million maybe, but certainly hundreds where you could cite examples of where committees were asked to take on certain responsibilities that may have been properly before other committees. There's no real point of order there.

Ms Lankin: Just one further point.

The Speaker: I'll certainly hear another point of order, but on the face of it I'll tell you now that there doesn't appear to be a point of order.

Ms Lankin: Thank you. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, there is one additional point I should have made in my original presentation to you, and that is that I think in the majority of these precedents you are citing - I don't have them in front of me so I'm unable to confirm that it is in all cases - the reason bills are referred to other committees is that the normal committee that would be the appropriate committee to hear that is busy with other government business. In this case it is obvious that the committee is not busy with another bill. The finance committee is free to hear that.

I would just ask if it is possible for there to be a check of the precedents when matters have been referred to other committees to see if in fact the pattern is such that it is because the obvious committee was busy with another bill at that time.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point you're making, but really the matter is immaterial. The reasons are immaterial. What it comes down to is, do they have the power to do this? If the answer is yes, then it's academic why they're doing it, and I don't even want to begin to get into the heads of the government who decided to do this because there are a million reasons why they could do it - I won't name every one of those either. The fact is that they're allowed to do it, it is properly before the House and it's within the rules that we operate by. Therefore it's in order and why they do it is immaterial.

I think I had the member for Essex South.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for seniors to make a statement and then for us to reply, in that this is the first day of Seniors' Month in Ontario.

The Speaker: I don't know the rules. He's not here. Is that proper? How can he make a statement if he's not here? We haven't even got to ministry statements yet. He may be giving a statement.

Mr Crozier: Speaker, you had called for ministry statements and then the point of privilege was raised.

The Speaker: That's right. Before motions. I went back to motions. Having said that, he's here now. Why don't I just get it out of the way early? Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement on Seniors' Month? Agreed?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): No.

The Speaker: No.

Hon Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate you recognized me. I just want to calm down the members opposite. Our office notified the two opposition critics that tomorrow we'd be making the formal -

The Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Ministry statements.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that the member for Fort William, prior to my entering the House, asked for unanimous consent to make a statement to mark the second anniversary of the death of -

The Speaker: You're going over old ground.

Ms Churley: I'd like to ask again.

The Speaker: With great respect, that has been put. The fact is, it has been put for unanimous consent and it was refused.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I think it is incumbent upon me to introduce the new pages. I wish to welcome the 15th group of pages to serve in this 36th Parliament:

Michael Bos, Nepean; Sean Broda, Don Mills; Anthony Carricato, Sault Ste Marie; Nancy Dang-Vuu, Chatham-Kent; Laura Duke, Mississauga North; Jeremiah Groen, York Centre; Brett Hodgins, Simcoe East; Jackie Hougham, Durham-York; Adrienne Johnson, Scarborough East; Sharleigh Laing, Sarnia; Mary Elizabeth Murray, Brant-Haldimand; Loretta Norton, St Catharines-Brock; Jesse Rissin-Rosenfeld, High Park-Swansea; Laura Robson, Lanark-Renfrew; Jennifer Skinner, Markham; Richard Southern, Oriole; Matthew Trevisan, York-Mackenzie; Racquel Uy Lim, Scarborough-Agincourt; Lee Webb, Middlesex; Drew Wicks, Northumberland; and Adam Wilson, Ottawa South.

Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your stay.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. I am concerned about what I believe could be, if the facts as alleged are true, one of the worst incidents of conflicts of interest that this House has had to contend with in a long, long time. Can you confirm that Michael French, an individual under contract with the Ontario government to run the competition for the new Niagara casino, was, at the same time, working on a $100,000 casino contract with the eventual winner? Can you confirm that this is in fact what happened and can you tell us when your government became aware of this conflict of interest and what you have done about it?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the OCC has advised me that basically the same process was in place for the Windsor process. In fact I have a letter from the Ontario Casino Corp that talks about their process and what due diligence they have conducted around that.

The allegation that you make specifically, that was mentioned in the Toronto Star article, I believe, on Saturday, is a new allegation to me. The first time I saw it was on Saturday. A formal process was in place for all parties to declare potential conflicts of interest. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers to check their records to see if this is true and if there was disclosure or if there was not disclosure. If anything improper has occurred, I can assure the House that we will look into it and see what steps to take next to remedy the situation.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, this is a very, very serious issue. This appeared in the Toronto Star on Saturday. It is unacceptable for you not to have an answer available in this Legislature today. If it was really important, you would have had that information and you would have had that answer available today. I think it's in both the greater public interest, as well as in your interest, that we have an inquiry into this matter to determine whether or not these facts as alleged are true.

It appears, according to a story in the newspaper this weekend, that there was a certain gentleman who was involved in a conflict of interest here. You can rectify this. You can remedy this. You can address this in the most responsible way by agreeing to have a public inquiry. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition tries to let on that you can do government just by snapping your fingers. When we were made aware of this allegation - I've informed you that I saw it for the first time on Saturday. This morning we called the Ontario Casino Corp, as I just explained to you. We've asked that the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers give a report back to us to determine (

a) whether it is true, and (

b) what the process was and what action should happen. I've given you the assurance that if there was anything improper done, we will take the proper action.

Mr McGuinty: This issue has been on the front burner here for quite some time now. You have said throughout that there was nothing to these allegations, that they were spurious in nature, that it was an invention on the part of the opposition party. How many more of these facts do you need to float to the surface before you agree to have a public inquiry? The people of this province are now beginning to pay more and more attention to this issue. It's on your plate. We have an allegation here of a serious conflict-of-interest charge.

Why don't you agree right now, because you've got nothing to hide, to hold a public inquiry that will start effective tomorrow in this Legislature so we can all get to the bottom of this?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, until last Saturday all we had were innuendo and accusations, and for all I know that still could be the case with this latest allegation.

What I have done is asked the Ontario Casino Corp, which, as you know, is at arm's length from the government and conducted this process - they had a selection process. They had a review committee. They've had checks and balances in place to avoid any potential conflict of interest. What I've asked them to do, with their lawyers, is to determine if this allegation is true, and if it is true, then I've assured the House that we will take the appropriate action if there has been any impropriety occurring.

But your solution to everything is to have a public inquiry. You've asked for them about 88 times and in 13 different allegations. Let's do this the right way, and that is to ask the question to the Ontario Casino Corp: "Is it true, and did it violate any of the procedures you had in place to protect the process and protect the taxpayers of this province?"

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. You will know that your colleague the Minister of Education has decided to deregulate tuition fees for Ontario's medical schools. Over the next two years, students will be facing tuition of somewhere between $10,000 and $11,000 a year for medical school. The Ontario Medical Association estimates that students leaving home to pursue medical school studies will face debt loads of up to $80,000 and as high as $100,000.

My question, Minister: Do you agree with your colleague's decision to deregulate tuition fees for our medical schools, knowing what it's going to mean for health care in Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, through you, to the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): It is indeed the situation that we need to ensure we have the proper students coming through our universities to achieve training, to ensure that health care in Ontario continues to improve.

Through the recent flexibility we've given our universities, many of which are not exercising that authority in the first year - U of T, for example, and Queens will not be introducing any fees in their first year - we are following what other provinces have done, For example, Nova Scotia: The leader of the opposition may know that in Nova Scotia the Liberal government has had tuition fees for medical residents for a number of years. Saskatchewan is another province.

Our expectation is that since they are both students as well as assisting in the system, the universities will be very responsive in terms of charging -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, every single medical school in the province is increasing its tuition fees for its medical students, and some plan to go as high as $11,000, such as the University of Toronto medical school right across the street here.

What the Minister of Health has failed to do is to recognize that this is an issue that is connected with our ability to delivery quality health care in the province. There are over 70 communities right now in Ontario that are experiencing doctor shortages. We've got to encourage students to get into medicine, and especially, knowing that students who graduate from medical school who come from underserviced areas are more likely to return to those areas, we've got to make sure we can encourage students from underserviced areas to get into medical school.

The problem is that in underserviced areas there are no medical schools. That means that when they come to the University of Toronto, they are looking at $20,000 every year to pursue medical school studies.

Once again, why are you making it more difficult for us to ensure we have a generous supply of doctors in Ontario when there is a growing need?

Hon David Johnson: Indeed we do need to ensure that all areas of Ontario are properly served by doctors. That's why this government, through the Ministry of Health, has taken initiatives in the past to encourage that there would be an adequate supply in rural areas and distant areas. Is that job finished? Can we guarantee at this exact moment in time that we have doctors in each and every rural area? No, we can't, but this government - the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education - has taken initiatives to ensure.

In terms of tuition fees, we also need to ensure a high quality of program through our universities. We are giving universities the flexibility, along with funding we've given to the universities, to ensure they have the resources to have a high-quality program such that our undergraduate students and our students in the medical field are well trained.

Mr McGuinty: The minister has got it right: It is an issue of funding and the problem is you're cutting funding to our colleges and universities. That's the issue. Now you're expecting our students to pick up the slack you've created.

Hon David Johnson: The reason is simple: It's because there's more than one issue that needs to be satisfied. There's the issue of quality. We need to ensure that the students at university, whether they're in the medical programs, whether they're in any other type of program, have access to quality programs. We have insisted - the first government which has ever taken this course of action - that where tuitions are increased, the post-secondary institution must identify a quality improvement in terms of the actual program or in terms of the facilities in which the students learn.

This government has taken action in terms of supporting doctors, encouraging them to set up practices in rural areas and underserviced areas in Ontario, and we are taking action at our post-secondary institutions to ensure a high-quality program for students coming through into the medical field.

ABORTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): To the Minister of Health, during the time I had the privilege of holding the portfolio of Minister of Health, the tragic bombing of the Morgentaler clinic took place. I held a press conference the following day to announce that we would move immediately to re-establish the clinic, that we would not allow women's access to legal abortion services to be eroded in any way.

Last month, a different bomb was dropped, not one of physical destruction but one that equally erodes women's access to abortion services. St Michael's Hospital, in taking over Wellesley, as a result of your hospital restructuring, announced that they would no longer be performing abortion services. That's 1,000 to 1,500 abortion procedures per year that will no longer be available to this community. You said nothing, Minister. The silence is deafening.

Will you stand today and make it clear, very clear, for the women of this province that the Mike Harris government will protect our right to choose, that you will protect our right of access to legal abortion services and that you will not allow any erosion of service-access levels as a result of your hospital restructuring?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): All of the physicians who performed the abortion procedures had their privileges transferred to another hospital. That has taken place and is in the course of taking place.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Let's be clear: Women in this community had access to a full range of reproductive and sexual health services at the Wellesley Hospital. Now they no longer have guaranteed access because St Mike's has taken over Wellesley as the result of hospital restructuring. Women whose doctors had hospital privileges at Wellesley have had those transferred to St Michael's. If they wish to have a procedure like a tubal ligation, they have no assurance they're going to be able to have that procedure.

Why should anyone other than a woman and her doctor have anything to say about whether a tubal ligation is allowed or not? St Mike's is saying you have to go through the same committee process that was deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. A woman who experienced a broken condom or, God forbid, is raped no longer has access to the morning-after pill because St Mike's won't allow it. Minister, I'm asking you directly today, will you take action to ensure that women's reproductive and sexual health services are reinstated at Wellesley?

Hon Mrs Witmer: All patients who require any of the specialized procedures or any of the specialized treatments are going to be accommodated elsewhere. It may not be at St Mike's, but certainly all of the physicians had an opportunity to determine where they would provide those services and they will be provided at other hospitals within the city of Toronto.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, this is totally unacceptable. Surely you're not saying that women are going to have to take to the streets yet again to protect the hard-won right to choose and to have access to safe, legal reproductive and sexual health services in our communities. That's the point here, and it's not just the Wellesley-St Mike's community; right across the province there's a concern that as hospital restructuring continues, there is no policy framework or direction from you to ensure that these service levels are protected no matter what happens with hospital mergers or service realignment.

In your mail today there is a letter from a Carol asking you to ensure that access to these services is not lost. The letter also asks that you "immediately put in place a policy directive that will ensure your hospital restructuring commission decisions cannot result in the loss of these critically important women's health services."

You have taken such actions to protect rural health care. Minister, will you tell us today that you will do the same for women's health?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the restructuring takes place, we have made sure that any of the specialized procedures that relate to any group of people can continue to be provided at other hospitals within Ontario. Those services, that access, will still be there. They may not be in the hospital, because it's being closed, but those services will still be provided to the patients in Ontario. In fact, when it comes to women's health, we are actually in the process of setting up a women's health council to ensure that the needs of women in this province will be reflected and the appropriate treatments can be provided.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I just want to take this opportunity to introduce, in the members' gallery, a member in the last Parliament, Dr Frankford. Welcome.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Chair of Management Board and it's a question we've been asking for over a week now: the very clear appearance of conflict of interest in your casino selection process and the impropriety that surrounds it.

Every day there is new information about the Falls Management casino consortium. We know already that all kinds of top advisers to the Conservative Party are involved and have been involved in that bid. Prominent Conservatives like David McFadden and George Boddington were involved in lobbying your government, first of all on setting up casinos, and are now part of the Falls Management casino consortium. In fact, they're going to benefit from what they lobbied for.

We know that the Falls Management casino consortium is owned in part by the Latner family. The family gave your party $48,000 before the last election.

Minister, the whole deal stinks of conflict of interest. When are you going to come clean and call a public inquiry so that people can be assured -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As I told the leader of the third party last week - his critics were asking me the same question - the Ontario Casino Corp has advised me that they've used a similar process to the one set up under your government, basically the same as in Windsor. You have a selection team, you have a group of advisers and you have a review panel.

They've written a letter to me stating that the process is fair, and independent of any influence of any kind. They've also said that the decision that Falls Management best met all the selection criteria was unanimous. There has been no contract assigned as yet because we've been in the process of negotiations. They also talked in their letter to me about the checks and balances around the conflict of interest.

The information that came forward last week in this House is innuendo and accusation. I pointed out at the time that this family that you seem to want to make innuendoes about did a great deal of business with your government when you were in power. I don't know where you would be on that, but when it comes to facts, I can tell you that this government will be open and transparent and will try to check these things out.

Mr Hampton: The fact is that any casino selection process used in the past didn't have a Conservative fund-raiser chairing the selection committee and didn't have Conservative lobbyists on both sides of the process lobbying for a casino and then joining the consortium that gets the casino. That's the difference, Minister. Open your eyes. It's evident to everyone else.

I want to ask you about a further detail. I want to ask you about the Conservative Party's Patti Starr, Leslie Noble. We know that Leslie Noble lobbied and advised the Premier to move full scale into legalized gambling. We also know that her brother, Bill Noble, now works for Gaming Venture Group, a company owned by the Latners, which has received one of the contracts to build a permanent charity casino.

Minister, how many connections do we have to draw? How many connections do we have to draw between Conservative advisers lobbying your government on the one hand and then getting the deal on the other? By the way, that company is also controlled by the Latners. What are you going to do about this?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party's questions are along the same nature as the ones I answered all last week. This was an arm's-length independent process. The Ontario Casino Corp advised me of the selection panel, they had a review team. It's basically the same process that you had set up. As to your allegations about influencing the Premier, I know nothing about that.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you can devise any process you want. The trouble is, if you've got your Conservative advisers sitting on the decision-making process and the same Conservative advisers benefit from the process, it's conflict of interest, and that's as plain as day.

But I want to raise another name. This concerns Michael French. It would appear that at the same time Michael French was working for your government he was working for a business group that was lobbying your government and he was also working for another group that was running the Niagara selection process. Even Donald Trump says there is something fishy here, there's something smelly here. We also know that early on Michael French assumed a major role in deciding who would get the contract in Niagara Falls.

Is this what you mean by opening up Ontario for business: Contribute to the Conservative Party and get awarded a contract? Is this the kind of message you want to send out about how Ontario does business?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I mentioned earlier to the leader of the third party, the Ontario Casino Corp advised me that they had basically the same process that was in place when your party was in power to do Windsor.

As I answered earlier today to an earlier question, the allegation around Coopers and Lybrand is a new allegation to me. A formal process was in place for all parties to declare a potential conflict. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers to check their records, and I can assure the House that if anything improper has occurred, we will take the proper action.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you tell us on behalf of your government that you are firmly committed to obtaining full and fair compensation for all hepatitis C victims. I don't want to ask you about compensation today. I want to ask you about access to treatment.

Today I met with three hep C victims who wanted you to know that while compensation is important to them, they are even more concerned about their access to medical treatment. They told me it can take anywhere from six to eight months to get approval for the drugs that they need, and I'm sure you will agree that that is not acceptable.

You've cut red tape for business. Why won't you cut red tape for hep C victims so that they can get early access to the drugs they need?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): To the Leader of the Opposition, yes, I see here, according to your press release, that you indeed have met with this group of individuals. As you know, I had the opportunity to meet with some of the representatives of the group last week myself. In fact, I've had a letter subsequently from this group and I think you'll be pleased to know that we actually have reduced the time period required to get access to drugs. I think in here it makes reference to six months. That can now be done in about three weeks.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Minister, your government said it is committed to helping all victims of hepatitis C. You said the real issue is not one of dollars but one of compassion and humanity. People are suffering right now. They need access to drugs, access to treatment, yet so far you have refused it. I am asking for three simple things: recognize hepatitis C as a disability; cut the red tape to allow victims of hepatitis C access to the drugs they need; and set up a registry to identify hepatitis C victims.

Today in the gallery are Trisha Beadle, Susan McGuire and Janice Pillon. They know that these are things you can do right now. Will you give them your guarantee today that you will do these things?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I said in my response to the Leader of the Opposition, I have met with representatives of the hepatitis C group. In fact, I want to stress again that today our government is represented at a meeting in Edmonton where we have indicated that we would like to extend a financial assistance package to those individuals who did get hepatitis C prior to 1986.

I know that as of today we have actually said to the federal government and we have said to the other people at that table that they must take off the table for discussion the status quo, and that is that no financial assistance would be provided. We are doing this despite the fact that we have yet to hear from the federal government as to what their position is regarding any assistance for any of these individuals who received hepatitis C prior to 1986.

In response to your question, again I would indicate to you that we have already been responding to concerns -

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have another question for the Chair of Management Board. I wonder if the Chair of Management Board can tell me about a company called Comcare. We know that your government is privatizing health care; we know you're closing hospitals and you're turning more and more health care over to private, for-profit companies. That's where Comcare comes in. We've discovered that Comcare is owned by Dynacare, and Dynacare is owned by the Latner family, a very generous contributor to your government.

What we've also discovered is that since you've now decided to privatize home care, Comcare, a Latner company, has come up with new contracts in Lanark county, Perth, Smiths Falls, Brockville and Sarnia. So here's the list: The Latner family is involved in the Niagara casino, the charity casinos, the Dynacare medical labs, Greenwin Properties, which benefits from your changes to rent control, and now Comcare, which benefits from your privatization of home care.

Minister, if you have nothing to hide, why don't you call a public inquiry so we can get to the bottom of all your connections to the Latner family?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I'll refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): If the leader of the third party were to carefully take a look at the number of companies that were privatized and the number that were non-profit that were providing community care service support when they were in office, he would see that the numbers were about the same as they are today. I think it's also important to remember that we have 43 CCACs in this province. Those are community care access centres.

There are boards that support the CCACs. They are locally elected and nominated individuals. What you are doing is casting aspersions on the process that those boards - local representatives - are making, the choices they're making regarding the services that are going to be provided in the community service area. I think it's unfortunate that you would cast aspersions on the people who are making those choices.

Mr Hampton: Let me help the Minister of Health out here. You've put in a rule that says that those CCAC boards always have to take the lowest bidder, that they always have to deal with whoever happens to bid the lowest in a particular area, regardless of quality of care.

My question to you is -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: My question to you is, it certainly bothers other people in this province when they see the Latner family contributing large sums of money to your government; they see you change the medical lab policy to benefit a Latner family company; we see you turn your casino selection process inside and out to benefit one of their companies; we see the connections with the charities selection and one of their companies. Now we're also seeing it with the privatization of home care.

Minister, take the profit out of health care. Take the profit out of your campaign contributors' pockets. Will you hold a public inquiry into how your government is awarding these contracts and the apparent conflict of interest that is everywhere?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would simply respond by saying those are some very serious allegations that are being made. I personally don't know the family in question, but I can say to you that it was your government that realized there were systemic problems associated with Ontario's public and private sector lab system. It was your government that first issued some formal recommendations on changes that should be made to the laboratory system. It was your government that brought in the industry cap on lab billings. It was your government that recognized that lab billing could not go unchecked.

It was also your government, as well as the Liberal government, who have been dealing with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories, and it was that association that has been giving governments support and advice and input. It was that association that early last year indicated the consideration of a corporate cap. That cap -

The Speaker: New question.

AMATEUR SPORT

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As the House is aware, I think everyone knows, my kids are involved in minor hockey and minor ball in Huron county, and I am very concerned about sports in Ontario.

There has been quite a bit of excitement and interest, understandably so, of late related to the Toronto Olympic bid. As all honourable members will know, the Canadian Olympic Association approved Toronto's proposal to become the Canadian candidate city for the 2008 Olympic Games back in April. The Premier was part of the team that made the successful presentation to the Canadian Olympic Association.

In my area of southwestern Ontario, there is a great deal of excitement about the London Alliance Canada Summer Games. Can the minister give us an indication of what role the province has in making these games a success?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, thank you for the question, because I want to point out that the Premier's leadership in making the bid in Calgary for the Olympic Games in 2008 opens the door to all sorts of possibilities for job creation all across the province, as well as economic development in general, as well as probably leaving us a legacy of sports facilities at the end of it.

Those same assets will be transferred to the London Alliance games, because in 2001 we are going to have in southwestern Ontario the tremendous summer games. Jobs will be created, there will be a legacy probably left of the facilities that will be built, and the province in general, but particularly southwestern Ontario, will be greatly enhanced economically, as well as putting it on the map.

Our government has put in, and the Honourable Minister Dianne Cunningham gave on the part of me and for the province -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary. Thank you. We'll go for the supplementary.

Mrs Johns: As my supplementary, concerns were highlighted about safe and harassment-free sports at the Canadian Hockey Association meeting in Quebec City in the last few weeks. Dealing strongly and effectively on this sort of matter is a priority for my family and families that participate in sports all over Ontario.

What is your ministry doing to bring awareness to this matter and how is the government showing leadership in this area of safe, secure activities for our youth?

Hon Ms Bassett: First of all, this is an area of prime concern for our government and I thank the Canadian Hockey Association for highlighting it at this time.

The ministry is working through the provincial sports organizations to send out the message that we will absolutely have zero tolerance on sexual harassment in sports. We are working with our partners and we want to develop further partnerships to make sure that we get this message out. To do this we are distributing a video called Good Sports Don't Hurt, Harassment Does. We are producing a guide to assist Ontario's sports administrators in screening applicants for paid and volunteer positions, and that's in the process right now.

We're providing the provincial sports organizations with resources such as model policies, videos and training materials to deal with sexual harassment and policy development.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Today doctors from around the province visited with the three parties in the Legislature and told us that they've come to ask for quality care because it's been taken away in this province. One of the reasons is the slashing and cutting you've done to this province's hospitals. Your funding cuts are directly responsible for lowering the standard of care: longer waiting lists and elective surgery being cancelled.

The Ontario Hospital Association said to you two weeks ago that the situation is getting worse, that the deficits at hospitals this year could be as high as $506 million. The banks may not even be willing to finance the money that hospitals need.

Minister, will you, in front of the doctors who have come today to see whether there is any leadership at Queen's Park, promise to admit your mistake, put funds back into hospitals in this province and ensure we can have the quality health care services for the patients that doctors want to give to them?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm not sure if you're indicating that doctors have asked you to make that plea or not. I had an opportunity myself today to meet with the doctors.

Certainly I want to emphasize the fact that we have had a committee set up with the physicians called the Physician Services Committee. It is a committee that moves together to ensure we can provide high-quality patient services to people in this province. There has been a commitment made by the Ministry of Health to work with health care providers such as physicians to ensure that we can provide high-quality health services.

We also continue to meet with the Ontario Hospital Association, and as I have said before, when there are situations in hospitals that require attention and require the additional resources, as you know, we are making a response. Part of that response was to make an additional $225 million available to respond -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Why would you have to be asked by doctors to ask the question? They want the question to be asked on behalf of their patients.

Minister, they know the question has to be put because this year, when you were faced with an emergency room crisis, you waited 10 weeks to even announce a response. What your deputy minister did was send a memo, and I have it here, around to hospitals reminding them that they should be cancelling elective surgery to compensate for your lack of dollars and to make sure people weren't sleeping overnight day after day in emergency room hallways.

I want to cite one case in a Scarborough hospital of a woman who miscarried, who tried to have the foetus removed not once but twice. She was going to be turned away until we intervened to have it happen. Elective surgeries have been cancelled all over this province to accommodate your random slashing. It's on behalf of patients like that that I ask you, will you put adequate funds back into hospitals to ensure patients can be properly treated?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, there is sometimes great liberty taken with some of the facts, so let's make one thing clear.

Dr Dennis Psutka in the Globe and Mail, February 4, 1998, made it clear that: "Overflowing hospital emergency rooms are nothing new and should not be attributed to health care restructuring."

The reality is that our government was the first one to courageously take action to respond to emergency room overcrowding. With the Ontario Hospital Association we set up a task force. The task force was composed of representatives from -

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Speaking of liberties with the truth.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Renfrew North, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Conway: I'm happy to withdraw it if the minister withdraws the same phrase.

The Speaker: The first thing is to withdraw it.

Mr Conway: I will happily withdraw if the minister -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister, I didn't hear it but you have your choice to withdraw it or not.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I said "liberty with the facts."

The Speaker: Frankly, I see it as the same thing so I would ask you to withdraw it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd be happy to if it pleases you.

The Speaker: It's got nothing to do with pleasing me; it's just a matter of withdrawing it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I withdraw.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Tourism, come to order. I don't want to have a debate about it. I see it as the same thing, so it's academic at this point what you think. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm happy to withdraw that.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Continuing with the discussion around the emergency room, our government was the very first government to actually respond to the problems that had been there for 10 to 15 years. There was a task force that was set up and the task force made a report.

They reported in the morning, and by the afternoon our government responded by indicating that we were prepared to invest $225 million in order to provide for an interim 1,700 long-term-care beds; money into home care services so that patients could be released from hospitals and get the support; money into hospitals so they could open additional hospital beds when there was overcrowding; and money to support critical care and emergency room nurses.

One more point: We are investing this year in hospitals $7.8 billion, and this is an increase of $534 million. We're spending more on health than ever in the history of this province.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In the context of Bill 108, I can only point out what a number of groups I've been dealing with have indicated about our proposal to deal with French-language rights in Bill 108. ACFO has told us, and it's quite encouraging to note, that linguistic rights and basic principles of law will be preserved when Ontario municipalities are transferred the responsibility for lawsuits and some provincial infractions.

They go on to say, "Now, with the proposed modification to Bill 108, municipalities will have to respect certain principles concerning the administration of justice. This modification protects the linguistic rights included in the transfer. ACFO is very pleased. We say kudos to the Ontario government and we thank AJEFO."

The association of francophone municipalities has this to say: "The revisions discussed and agreed to by all participants on April 21 will further reassure those who may not have been convinced of the commitment of the government to linguistic rights.... The board of directors and member municipalities urge the Ontario government and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed as soon as possible with third reading of Bill 108 within the new session."

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

M. Bisson : Monsieur le Procureur général, c'est clair : toutes les opinions juridiques qui ont été données disent que vous ne protégez pas les droits des francophones. C'est clair. C'est soit (

a) que vous êtes complètement incompétent, et vous êtes incapable d'écrire un amendement qui protège des services juridiques francophones, ou (

b) que vous savez parfaitement bien que votre amendement ne protège pas les services juridiques pour francophones, et vous faites de la politique avec nos droits, sachant que des gens de votre caucus qui sont proches du Parti réformiste veulent éroder les services des francophones. Quelle est votre réponse ? Est-elle (

a) que vous êtes incompétent, ou (

b) que vous êtes en train de nous passer un sapin ?

Hon Mr Harnick: Let me tell you what the francophone jurists have told me. They say:

"This is a compromise which, in my opinion, benefits all parties. The government ensures respect for the basic principles of justice and for language rights by municipalities interested in signing an agreement with the Attorney General. The Franco-Ontarian community will benefit from the fact that in Ontario, language rights are associated with statutory and common law rights.

"I would like to thank you for the successful result we have achieved. By protecting existing language rights in this way as part of the transfer to Ontario municipalities of prosecution responsibilities with respect to certain provincial offences and certain federal contraventions, you are the first government to clearly specify the right to a French-speaking municipal prosecutor. I am also pleased that the wording used will ensure the delivery of counter services in French....

"Finally, I would like to thank you for your personal intervention in this matter and for your suggestions which allowed us to protect language rights, which are so important to our Canadian identity. I am very happy that we were able to work together to amend this bill in so positive a manner."

That's what the association of francophone jurists says. Certainly they are satisfied, and the method that we've used extends French services in a way that they never did when they were the government.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, the issue of graduated licensing has been highlighted in the media recently and is a concern to the people in my constituency.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane South, come to order.

Mr Ford: It was designed to cut down on the risks that new drivers face. As I understand it, before 1994, new drivers of all ages were three times more likely to be involved in a serious or fatal crash than experienced drivers. Also, collisions were the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 16 and 24 years. Minister, can you tell this House and my constituents what our new drivers must do to obtain driving privileges?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member for Etobicoke-Humber for the question. It is true that graduated licensing was introduced in 1994. Indeed the member for York Mills was lobbying for a full two years before that for this very worthwhile program.

Under the GLS, all new drivers will have at least 20 months' driving experience and have passed two driver exams prior to becoming fully licensed. In the G1, or first stage of the licensing process, new drivers must be accompanied by a licensed driver with four years' driving experience, have a zero blood alcohol level, refrain from driving between midnight and 5 am, have a seatbelt for all backseat passengers and are prohibited from driving on 400-series highways and other high-speed highways.

To pass the G2 stage, drivers must pass the basic road test. New drivers will remain in G2 for 12 months and continue to build on their driving knowledge. These new drivers must also have a zero blood alcohol level and must have a seatbelt for every person in the car. I'm pleased to say that death, injuries and collisions among novice drivers have declined significantly since the introduction of graduated licensing.

Mr Ford: Minister, I know my constituents will be glad to hear that graduated licensing has been working. However, could you please provide me with some more details on the interim evaluation of graduated licenses? How much safer are our new drivers?

Hon Mr Clement: The statistics, which are very exciting for those who are concerned about safety, are a matter of public record. I can tell the honourable member that the overall collision rate for novice drivers under GLS has improved by 31%; fatality and injury collision rates are down by 24%. The collision rate for novice drivers between the ages of 20 and 24 saw a dramatic decrease, with a 38% decrease in collisions for male drivers and a 49% decrease in collisions involving female drivers.

The benefits, if I can make this final comment, for GLS means that there are safer roads for all drivers. It also means 900 fewer visits to emergency rooms, 2,000 fewer days in the hospital for collision victims, 800 fewer ambulance calls and 13,000 fewer hours of police time required to investigate collisions. I believe that this is an important fact for Ontario. I thank the honourable member for the question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. In view of the comments made earlier by my colleague from York South in regard to the cuts and deficits the hospitals are facing, we've added to the crisis in Hamilton-Wentworth with an extensive backlog in the area of orthopaedic surgery. Some doctors I've spoken to in the Hamilton area report waiting lists of up to three years for joint replacement surgery, up to 400 individuals on those waiting lists. Dr Frank Smith, a prominent Hamilton physician, says, "We're now reaching the point that we're not able to cope with the enormous burden."

We're talking about senior citizens here. We're talking about individuals to whom access to surgery makes a difference between being confined to their homes or being able to function fully and properly in the community. Minister, I ask you, in view of the difficulties we're facing, will you today commit to increased funding for hospitals in the Hamilton area to clear up the backlog and ease the burden of many of the senior citizens who are waiting for the surgery?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): One of the reasons we're reforming our health care system is so that we can address the needs of the aging population. The aging population requires a greater expenditure of health care dollars, and we have identified the fact that there are some priority areas that need our attention and we have been reinvesting dollars. Priority areas are cardiac care, cancer care, hip and knee replacement, and of course dialysis.

We have been making announcements over the past couple of years. We have reinvested a total of $3 billion. We will continue to ensure that those priority services are there for the individuals who need them and we will endeavour to reduce those waiting lists to the greatest degree possible.

Mr Agostino: The problem becomes that you continue to make announcements - Minister Wilson made announcements, you have made announcements - but the money is not flowing. It is not reaching the level where patients are going to benefit from this. Very clearly, you can understand that a three-year waiting list for surgery for a 70- or 75-year-old senior citizen who is confined to a bed or to a home is unacceptable anywhere in this country, particularly in Ontario.

Minister, the announcements sound good. The feel-good press releases help. The reality at the end of the day is that seniors and people who are waiting for surgery are not benefiting because the money is not flowing and the cuts that have been made are far too deep.

I saw an individual in my office on Friday who has been waiting in excruciating pain for six months. She must take painkillers every four hours, every single day, because of the pain. It's been three months and she is still to get a date for this type of surgery. You can understand the impact.

Specifically, can you tell me how much money will be allocated to Hamilton-area hospitals to clear up the backlog in orthopaedic surgery, and when will that money start flowing?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I can appreciate the situation that people in this province face when they require hip and knee surgery. It is for that reason that recently, when I made the most recent announcement concerning additional money for hip and knee surgery, we set up a patient registry system in order that all future reinvestments could be directed and targeted to the areas of Ontario where individuals are most in need of this surgery and where we can reduce the waiting list to the greatest degree possible.

This registry was greeted with tremendous support from the surgeons who are involved in this type of surgery and from the physicians, so I hope that we can address the concerns of those individuals you speak about.

TIRE RECYCLING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last March with great fanfare you stated that the tires buried in Egremont township would be removed and recycled when the weather got better. As of 11:30 this morning, you still had not lived up to this promise. But what is worse is that your ministry has indicated, and I have a letter here stating this, "that the groundwater is severely contaminated with carcinogenic substances and that the aquifer may become contaminated."

Minister, it sounds like you may be removing the tires, but you're leaving the toxic sludge and toxic water. When removing the tires, they're going to dig a pit next to the tire site, draining the water into the new pit, removing the tires and then putting the toxic water back into the original pit, with the hope that these contaminants will break down naturally.

We're talking about toxic sludge and toxic water here. Will you commit today to remove the toxic water and the toxic sludge before the aquifer is contaminated?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I am taking the advice of my technicians and my scientists with regard to the treatment of this particular matter. They have assured me that whatever method they choose will take care of the problem that is there, a problem which incidentally was created because a previous minister wouldn't take some aggressive action with regard to the removal of these tires. That happened in the last administration.

Ms Churley: Minister, you are aware that that was an urgent situation and that was a recommendation from the local area at the time. We're talking about the present situation. It is your responsibility to clean it up.

I want to talk to you about a resurgence of tire fires in Ontario in general. Many people are suggesting that this is a direct result of a lack of enforcement by your ministry, most particularly due to the massive cuts you've made. But there are many of these ticking time bombs across the province. The residents of Brantford know this all too well. I'm sure you're familiar with the Otterwood Tire site in Brantford. There was a fire at this site last December. There are well in excess of 5,000 tires on the site. The owner does not even have a certificate of approval, nor has he applied for one. The first order against the company was given on October 15, 1997.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Ms Churley: Minister, they are out of compliance. When are you going to accept responsibility for the tire sites across the province and bring in legislation to deal -

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Riverdale. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: The collection of tires and the problems related to that have long been ongoing in this province. We are at the present time looking at various options to deal with this long-festering problem.

With regard to individual sites, I understand there are significant problems in Brantford. My ministry issued an order last December but ran into some difficulties with regard to that. I am, however, attempting to deal with this in a more generic manner so that we will have the powers and the laws and the regulations behind us in order to deal with these in a more aggressive manner.

I'm amazed that the previous government and governments before this time have not given environmental officers the tools they need in order to enforce the laws we have in place.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: My hope is that this Legislature, with the help of the opposition parties, will give our environmental officers the necessary tools to deal with people who are collecting tires illegally and not taking care of -

The Speaker: New question. Member for Durham-York.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. I read a report describing a resolution coming from the recent NDP convention. It indicated the need to end funding cuts imposed on programs to combat violence against women.

Minister, you were in my riding recently when we presented funds to a local coalition of women's groups. Help me with this. Could you please clarify for my constituents and the members of this House the degree to which this government is committed to combating violence against women?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): It seems that a lot of people must have seen that resolution at the NDP convention, but the fact of the matter is - and I think that the NDP caucus here at Queen's Park understands because they've been working with us in many regards to make this a priority for the government - we actually do spend more money. We spend more than the $100 million that was there when we first became the government.

But I think the most important part of that is that we're focusing on delivery of programs and so there has been a rearrangement of the money to put it into front-line programs as opposed to administration, some 30 programs across nine ministries. In addition to the $100 million, we of course are spending $27 million over the next five years.

We appreciate the assistance that we've had from over 500 groups and individuals who let us know where their priorities were, and this is definitely a priority for our government, as it was for governments previous to us. We're spending more money on violence against women in Ontario.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I add my signature to this petition.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): This afternoon I had the chance to attend an event organized and supported by injured workers, together with my leader and the member for Hamilton Centre, and I have this petition to present.

"Whereas the Harris Conservative government's Bill 99 has cut benefits and stripped rights from injured workers; and

"Whereas the government's new deadline for appeals of WCB cases threatens to deprive thousands of injured workers of any opportunity for justice; and

"Whereas injured workers and their supporters have set aside June 1 of each year to rally support for the cause of justice for injured workers; and

"Whereas this cause of justice will not be achieved until Bill 99 is repealed;

"Therefore, we call on the Legislature of Ontario to repeal Bill 99, restore fair benefits and a fair appeal system and undertake a complete reform of the system to finally achieve justice for injured workers."

I've affixed my signature to that as well.

ABORTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I present this petition on behalf of 700 of my constituents.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I've got a petition here that reads like this, and it is directed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has committed the government of Ontario to enacting an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office;

"Whereas the expiry of the government of Ontario's current term of office is fast approaching;

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has further committed the government of Ontario to working with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop such legislation;

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has unanimously passed a resolution that it keep its promise to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office and that the government of Ontario work with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop such legislation; and

"Whereas the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, of which Bloorview MacMillan Centre is a supporting member, has provided to the government of Ontario the document A Blueprint for a Strong and Effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which contains many examples of barriers experienced by people, including children and young adults, with disabilities; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario committed in its 1998 budget address to supporting people with disabilities through a variety of measures, including the creation of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, of Bloorview MacMillan Centre, a family-centred rehabilitation facility serving Ontario's children and youth with disabilities and special needs and their families, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately act on its commitment to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office and, in doing so, include effective means to eliminate barriers experienced by children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, and also to involve the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, including children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, in developing such legislation."

I will affix my signature in full agreement with this petition.

PROTECTION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by many people from Grey and Bruce counties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly which I'd like to read.

"Whereas the Minister of Education intends on taking more than $1 billion out of Ontario's education system at a time when there is an increasing consensus on the importance of supporting our schools and classrooms; and

"Whereas per pupil funding in the province of Ontario now ranks below other jurisdictions such as Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now embarked on an advertising campaign which will cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $1 million; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris commercial doesn't constitute an important public announcement and instead is clearly an abuse of public funds, because they are self-serving political messages which are designed to influence public opinion; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could cancel the advertising campaign and use the $1 million which belongs to the taxpayers of Ontario for the purchase of 40,000 textbooks;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to cancel their blatantly partisan, self-serving political advertising campaign and redirect the taxpayers' $1 million to classroom funding."

I concur with the content of the petition and I will affix my name to it.

ABORTION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to sign this petition.

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads:

"Whereas nursing is key to quality health care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to provide high-quality care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be heard and consulted on health care issues; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be recognized and treated as equals in the health care system; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to have meaningful participation in all aspects of health care reform; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be advocates for their communities and the people they care for without fear of reprisal; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in settings that are free from harassment and discrimination and that nurture learning, diversity, personal growth, job satisfaction and mutual support; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in conditions that promote and foster professionalism and teamwork; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to deliver care in an integrated, publicly funded, not-for-profit health care system that is grounded in the principles of the Canada Health Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour, promote and respect the nurses' bill of rights as outlined above and to ensure that these rights are enshrined in all aspects of health care."

I have attached my name to that petition.

HOME CARE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 1,127 signatures collected by Lorraine Fines from the town of Orangeville. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas sufficient new funds have not been allocated from the province to provide the quality and quantity of services offered by the community care access centre of Wellington-Dufferin, thereby resulting in a change to the eligibility criteria and the decision by the CCAC not to include homemaking services to the disabled, frail and elderly as an insured service, and decreasing the amount of support and relief services available for relatives and others who provide care for an individual at home;

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

"Increase the funds allocated for health care in Wellington-Dufferin in order for the community care access centre to support individuals to remain in their home by reinstating homemaking services to the disabled, frail and elderly; reinstating caregiver support in the form of respite services back to 60 hours per month as provided by the former home care agency."

I have placed my signature on this document.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here about a matter which really concerns Ontarians, and that's the fact that the rules have been reformed so there's less debate about a very important matter. I'll just read this petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support this resolution and I have signed it.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I wish to present a petition signed by Catholic ratepayers from my riding.

"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.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition with respect to education advertising.

"Whereas the Minister of Education intends on taking more than $1 billion out of Ontario's education system at a time when there is an increasing consensus on the importance of supporting our schools and classrooms; and

"Whereas per pupil funding in the province of Ontario now ranks below other jurisdictions, such as Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now embarked on an advertising campaign which will cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $1 million; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris commercial doesn't constitute an important public announcement and instead is clearly an abuse of public funds, because they are self-serving political messages which are designed to influence public opinion; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could cancel the advertising campaign and use the $1 million which belongs to the taxpayers of Ontario for the purchase of 40,000 textbooks;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to cancel their blatantly partisan, self-serving political advertising campaign and redirect the taxpayers' $1 million to classroom funding."

I'm pleased to affix my signature, along with dozens of my constituents, to this particular petition, which we think is in the best interests of the province of Ontario.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government continues to chronically underfund and cut public sector expenditures to pay for a 30% tax cut; and

"Whereas we believe these cuts have greatly reduced the ability of the public sector to deliver the quality of services all Ontarians expect in health, education, environment, law enforcement and all other services expected from a government to create a just society;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be dissolved and a general election be called immediately."

OPPOSITION DAY

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe there is unanimous consent for me to move the motion that has been tabled in the name of Mr McGuinty.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? There is unanimous consent.

Mrs McLeod: I move that:

Whereas Mike Harris is responsible for a 60% increase in tuition fees on top of the 50% increase under the previous NDP government; and

Whereas students are already graduating with $28,000 debts; and

Whereas tuition deregulation will cause tuition fees to soar and debt loads to skyrocket; and

Whereas Mike Harris has not just raised tuition fees, he has also forced students to take on more and larger loans and has told families they will have to contribute more; and

Whereas the Mike Harris cuts to colleges and universities are the deepest of any jurisdiction in North America over the last two years; and

Whereas Mike Harris has prevented students from earning their own way by cutting back on the amount of money they can earn in a year and by cutting back on the amount of earnings they can make through summer jobs programs; and

Whereas Mike Harris student debt load levels are already too high; and

Whereas students and their families are already experiencing "sticker shock" at the high cost of these programs; and

Whereas no student in Ontario should be denied the opportunity to get a degree or diploma;

Resolved that the government listen to the students, professors and financial institutions who say that debt levels are already unmanageable; and

Resolved that the government adopt the Dalton McGuinty commitment to freeze tuition fees and halt opportunity-killing tuition deregulation; and

Resolved that the government stop forcing students into greater debt to make up for the Harris cuts to universities and colleges in Ontario.

We've chosen to focus debate today on the growing disaster of high tuition and soaring levels of student debt. There is a crisis in post-secondary education today, a crisis facing the young people who want the opportunity to go on to college and university, but who know that their families can't support them and know that getting a post-secondary education is going to mean years and years of being burdened with debt after graduation.

There are a number of facts that have led to this crisis, and I just want to underline those today.

The first fact is that under the previous New Democratic Party government there was a 50% increase in tuition and the cost to students; the student's share of the cost of an education continued to grow. It is interesting that now the New Democrats are no longer in government they appear to have gone back to believing in zero tuition, but that belief seemed to have been set aside while they were sanctioning a 50% increase in tuition as a government.

The second fact is that this Mike Harris Conservative government, which promised that a slight increase in tuition would be part of their election platform, has actually sanctioned nothing less than a 60% increase in tuition over the term of their government, a 60% increase in tuition across the board. That has meant that the student's share of the cost of education has now risen to some 35%. In some institutions in this province, the student's share of the cost of education has reached 50%.

There once was set out in writing a Mike Harris Conservative Party belief that a fair share for students was 25% of the cost of education. But it seems that that belief has been excised from any document or they'd like to excise it from any document bearing the stamp "Common Sense Revolution" because that is one of the unkept promises that this government would like to forget about.

The third fact is that it wasn't enough for the Mike Harris government to sanction a 60% increase in tuition across all programs, undergraduate, graduate and professional; they decided they would bring in deregulation, the second province in the country to allow deregulation. Nova Scotia, the only other province that has deregulated tuition fees, has the highest tuition of any province in this country. We are second and we will soon surpass them because this government has seen fit to deregulate graduate programs and many professional programs.

What we're already seeing is that decision to deregulate, to allow institutions in these particular areas of deregulated programs to charge whatever they think the market will bear to their students, that freedom, that flexibility which the minister described as having been given to the institutions, is going to mean increases in tuition in some programs as high as 120%.

What that means is that government-owed debt, the debt owed to government, whether provincial, federal or to the university, for a student who wants to go to medical school at the University of Toronto, could well be as high as $81,000. That does not include private debt and it doesn't include the debt which apparently those medical school students who become graduates and go into residency programs will have to incur to pay this idea of tuition on their residency programs.

Amazing that the University of Toronto has decided it wants its medical residents to pay back their student loans even while they continue to pay tuition for their residency programs. The Harris government has nothing at all to say about that. They want to wash their hands of any responsibility for what colleges and universities do in these deregulated programs.

The fourth fact is that the Harris government has washed its hands of ensuring that debt loads for students remain manageable. They have allowed "the sky's the limit" increases in the deregulated programs. They've sanctioned a 60% increase in other programs. The only commitment that they require from universities and colleges in the deregulated programs is to ensure that the college or university itself lends the student more money and puts in place some kind of repayment plan to get that money back from the students when they graduate, a repayment plan which is supposedly going to be sensitive to income.

That at least is consistent with what the Harris government has always claimed was their answer to soaring tuition and increased debt, that they would put in place something called an income-contingent repayment plan so they would assure students that if you were going to have large debts you wouldn't need to worry because you would only have to repay those debts as your income after graduation allowed it. Of course what that really means is that students will have more debt, they will pay more interest on the debt because all their government is really doing is allowing them to take longer to repay the debt if they don't have a good-paying job immediately after graduation.

That is hardly an answer for students and is certainly not a way of keeping debt manageable. But this government couldn't even get that plan off the ground because the banks that were approached to work with them on their new student assistance loan repayment plan said: "We won't participate. We won't participate because the student debt load is already too high."

In Nova Scotia, where they had an income-contingent repayment plan to deal with the high debt loads of their highest tuition in the country, the bank that was responsible for administering that has withdrawn from the program because student debt load is so high that the student was too big a risk for the banks to be a lender and to manage that loan after graduation. The bank said: "The debt was too high. We're not prepared to work with you, government, to get into your income-contingent repayment plan." The banks also said: "There are already too many lenders. It's too confusing.

You can't have a good debt management plan for a student and for graduates from our colleges and universities because they owe money to the province and they owe money to the federal government."

What did this government do in answer to the bank's concern? They added to the debt with deregulated tuition and they got another lender, the college or university itself, into the business of lending money. This government basically took its traditional approach. They said, "We can't solve the problem so we will just dump it on to the institutions and we will leave the burden of that debt on the students themselves."

Of course, this government did not wash its hands of any further responsibility for helping students manage reasonable debt until it had already taken a whack at the existing student assistance program. This is a government and a minister who want to brag about having a so-called new plan for student assistance. It was a part of the budget that was highlighted. But in fact there is no new Ontario government plan for student assistance.

This government had the sheer gall to take the dollars that are currently in the student assistance plan in Ontario and roll them in under the umbrella of what was a welcome federal government initiative, their millennium scholarship fund. But all this government did was buy into the name of a program which was welcome. They didn't put any new money into it.

When the Minister of Education talks about 300 million new dollars into the new student assistance plan, they aren't new dollars at all. That $300 million that the minister talks about is the same $300 million that three months ago this government took out of the loan forgiveness plan and put into something which they now call a grant: exactly the same money; no more assistance for students. In fact this government, in the meantime, has dismantled the student assistance program and the support that has been provided traditionally to Ontario students bit by bit.

They have raised the level to qualify for loan forgiveness or for what is now called a grant, which means more debt for students; $1,000 more debt per year that this government sanctions before they will provide any relief for students at all, and of course that means less cost for government even though it means more debt for students. They made students dependent on their families for support for an extra year before they can get any assistance at all; again, more debt for families and less cost to government.

This government decreased the amount of money that students are allowed to earn without its affecting the assistance they can get from the Ontario student assistance plan. Again, that let the Harris government make cutbacks in student assistance funding but left students with even more debt. This government then decided it would save even more money by simply cutting part-time students out of student assistance altogether and it forced single parents on welfare to go into debt to get even a chance at a post-secondary education.

What does this mean to individuals? It means that besides the fact that there is less cost for government, less responsibility for the Mike Harris Conservatives and a lot more debt for students, many young people, many single parents, many adults who want to improve their employment possibilities by getting a post-secondary education simply won't go to college or university. It doesn't matter how much you tell them that they will be able to improve their employment possibilities and pay back their debts after graduation, people are afraid to take on debts that range from $25,000 to $100,000.

I just recently had a letter from a young woman who is 25 years old, a graduate of a four-year program here in Ontario, now working in a fairly low-paying job teaching in Saskatchewan and believing that she now faces personal bankruptcy because she simply can't begin to make the repayments on her Ontario student loan. She does not want to be a bad citizen, she doesn't want to be a defaulter, she doesn't want to be a bad credit risk. She wants to teach, she wants to contribute, and instead of that she has been put in a position of facing a future of debt. People will not take on that kind of risk of debt.

I was at Yorkdale Secondary School, an adult education centre, last week talking with people who are about to graduate from that program. They are devastated because these people, many of them single parents who've gone back to get their secondary school diploma in the hope that they can improve their situation through education, know that the door has been shut to them on a post-secondary education in Ontario.

Now we have deregulation, which means a two-tiering of our post-secondary education system so that some programs in some schools are going to be accessible only to those who can afford them. We are going to have a two-tiering of our institutions, with those universities and colleges that believe they can charge higher fees and still attract students coming to be better funded than those that can't, particularly universities in more remote locations. Then we are going to have the kind of two-tiering that says we have some colleges and universities available to those who can afford the best and we are going to have other colleges and universities for the rest.

We successfully managed to confront and to avoid the two-tiering of education in this province right up until the time that this Mike Harris Progressive Conservative government - hardly progressive at all - decided it would set aside the values and goals that have always been the hallmark of Ontario education, elementary and secondary and post-secondary education, and allow the market to dictate who would have an opportunity to get that invaluable educational opportunity.

We know that colleges and universities are cash-strapped after $400 million in cuts and after a budget that provided only a very few dollars to a very few selected programs. We know that we are 10th and last across the country in the funding of post-secondary education. But the answer is not to make up for the cuts on the backs of students. The answer is not to put signs on the doors of some of our colleges and our universities saying they are for the rich only. The answer is not to drive a generation of students deeper and deeper into debt. The answer is not to have the lowest funding and the highest tuition of any province in this country.

That is why we call on this government to listen to the students, the professors, the financial institutions, the families who say that debt levels are already unmanageable and are going to deprive their young people, students of this province, of the opportunity to pursue the college or university program of their choice; to adopt Dalton McGuinty's commitment to freeze tuition fees to stop the opportunity-killing deregulation of tuition; to stop and take time to determine what is fair and affordable as a share for students to pay for their education and to ensure that we have a student assistance plan in place to protect students from being ridden with debt for years after their graduation.

That is the purpose of our motion today, and we trust it will have the support of all members of the House who truly believe that post-secondary education is an opportunity that should be available to every qualified student.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to support the resolution this afternoon because I am particularly concerned about the very serious level of student debt already in this province, considering that this province, admittedly due to cuts from all three parties when they were in government, is now the lowest on a per capita basis for funding of post-secondary education of all provinces in this country. It has gone progressively down in terms of funding.

When the Liberal government was in power, Ontario was eighth in funding; under the New Democratic Party government Ontario was ninth in funding per student; and under this government, the Conservative government, we are now 10th on a per capita basis in terms of funding post-secondary education.

How is it that we in Ontario, the richest province, the province that has between 30% and 40% of the economy of the whole country, that has a population of about 12 million people, that has enormous wealth of resources, are the last in per capita student expenditure for post-secondary education in this country? How is it that we lag behind Atlantic Canada or the Prairies?

Partly because we are so low in per capita expenditure for post-secondary education, governments of all three parties have allowed a higher percentage of the cost of each student's post-secondary education to be paid for by the student or his or her family through tuition fees.

You will know that our party has recently gone through an exercise that we have called Dialogue for Change. We have dealt with many policy areas, put out discussion papers and had grass-roots discussions with people right across the province, not just members of our own political party but also people with interests in various policy areas right across Ontario, and have come forward with proposals for policy initiatives in these areas that were recently debated at our party convention in Hamilton and were passed.

One of those discussion papers in the policy area that I'm most concerned with was to do with education. It was entitled Not for Sale: the Future of our Public Education. One of the areas that is dealt with in the Dialogue for Change paper on education is post-secondary education. We had significant input from administrators, faculty, support staff, but particularly from post-secondary students, in developing our position with regard to post-secondary education. I would commend it to all members of the House.

The major concern that is uppermost in the minds of students right now - I should say not just current students but also most recent graduates - is the level of student debt. Ten years ago, the average graduate in Ontario had a debt of approximately $7,000 on graduation with an undergraduate degree. That has now grown, depending on the particular field, to somewhere between $17,000 and $25,000 per graduate.

With the proposals that are before us for deregulation of tuition fees and further increases in tuition, over the next 10 to 20 years we will see the average debt load per graduate in Ontario rise to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40,000 to $60,000 on graduation. It's no wonder, as my friend from Fort William says, that many students are suffering sticker shock when they look at the costs, not just tuition but their accommodation, their books and all the ancillary costs that are a part of participating in a post-secondary school education.

Many of them are saying, "Look, I can't afford this," or "My family can't afford it," and they're forgoing it.

This is a question of access to post-secondary education. All of us in this House must understand and believe that all students who are capable and have the initiative should have access to a post-secondary education. They should not be limited by the size of their pocketbook or by the income of their families. Unfortunately, the changes we have seen in tuition, particularly in the last two and a half years, but even previous to that, are making it very difficult for low-income or middle-income students and their families to be able to afford a post-secondary education.

If this trend continues, and it can only continue if we deregulate tuition fees, even for graduate courses, it will have very serious detrimental effects on the ability of those students from limited or moderate means to atten