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

August 28, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L221 - Thu 28 Aug 1997 / Jeu 28 Aoû 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE JOUR DES LOYALISTES DE L'EMPIRE-UNI

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE JOUR DES LOYALISTES DE L'EMPIRE-UNI

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

GASOLINE PRICES

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

JEUX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE / WORLD FRANCOPHONE GAMES

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRE

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

BLOOD SYSTEM

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

COMMITTEE REPORT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LANSING CO-OPERATIVE NURSERY SCHOOL ACT, 1997

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

GASOLINE PRICES

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

GASOLINE PRICES

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

GASOLINE PRICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ONTARIO HYDRO

YOUNG OFFENDERS

EDUCATION

LONG-TERM CARE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GASOLINE PRICES

LONG-TERM CARE

WINE INDUSTRY

PUBLIC HOUSING

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

BLOOD SYSTEM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I move that in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should ensure that the government of Ontario send to Ontario health insurance plan account holders a statement summarizing the monthly activity in their respective account each month there is account activity, and the statements indicate the expense of the provided health care service, the amount covered by the Ontario health insurance plan and the name of the health care worker who provided the service.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Ford: I'm pleased to stand in this chamber today to advocate for changes in the way billings are managed in the Ontario health insurance plan. I'm also pleased because this is an opportunity for all members in this chamber to make a positive contribution towards our health care system.

As members of this Legislature, we all have issues which are most important to us for a variety of reasons. The resolution I present before us today is one which affects everyone in Ontario and is an opportunity to improve one of the finest health care systems in the world.

This government wants Ontario's health care system to continue to have a positive international reputation. In fact, the financial allocation for health care in the recent provincial budget is the highest in Ontario's history. This obviously sends a clear message that this government is fully committed to making sure all patients receive the best care possible.

But I ask myself, what can I do to make our health care system in Ontario more accountable to the taxpayers of this province and preserve it for future generations?

Having served on a hospital board for a significant period, I'm quite familiar with the working environment of the health care community. This environment is one that contains a lot of dedicated professionals concerned about the wellbeing of others. Their time and determination to find solutions to health care concerns is appreciated by thousands of people every day. It is to these dedicated professionals and the people of Ontario to whom I dedicate this resolution.

To begin my remarks, I thought I would start off with a review of how recent governments have attempted to grasp control of accountability within OHIP, only to let it slip out of their fingers.

In 1986, with good intentions, the Liberal government approved the replacement of the Ontario health insurance plan family-based registration system with an individual-based registration system. However, only one year later, the 1987 auditor's report found that there were 24.7 million OHIP subscribers in the province, almost triple the province's population of nine million, and that the computer system was outmoded.

In January 1990, final approval was given for the universal registration project at an estimated cost of $31.5 million and it began a few months later by having plastic health cards issued. Not surprisingly, cost increases in the registration project developed and when the NDP came into government, they approved an additional $6 million to cover costs.

After reviewing the matter again, the Provincial Auditor produced another report in 1992 which stated, "In the ministry's bid to get the new system in place as quickly as possible, they intentionally limited eligibility and accuracy verification."

There was already confusion in the NDP government because, as of January 1993, there were 12.2 million health cards provided, while 1.4 million of them were ineligible.

A year later, the NDP announced a new photo system at a cost of $90 million for three years and a $19-million annual cost every year thereafter. However, ministry sources put the price of the registration project at $189 million with annual costs of $25.5 million in subsequent years.

The public's blood continued to boil as their frustration grew and millions of dollars in taxpayers' money continued to be tossed away. They had every reason to be upset. The matter of OHIP accountability was obviously being mismanaged.

At election time in 1990, the Liberals wanted their health card system in place quickly as an electioneering tool and were willing to sacrifice the necessary anti-fraud and verification procedures to do it. In the haste to be seen to be taking action on the problem during the 1990 campaign, the Liberals decided to use the existing imperfect database to issue new health cards rather than reinvesting the time and money to improve the database.

Even during the 1995 provincial election, the Liberals promised to design a health card system that eliminated fraud and abuse, but provided no specifics on how it would be done. At that same time, the NDP maintained their health card system would solve fraud and abuse problems, while security experts said it alone would not be enough to eliminate fraud.

After health card mismanagement by two governments, the time of insensibility has come to an end. It's time to be aggressive about rooting out health card fraud so that the money saved can be reinvested towards front-line services for patients.

I know the Minister of Health is committed to seeing results on this very problem. Already there's evidence of that. In fact, since the people of Ontario elected us, the minister has instituted measures to obtain the results the public deserves.

Within six months of taking office, the ministry's computer network was upgraded to weed out and cancel duplicate health cards. The government created a 1-800 fraud line to report any instances of health care fraud. Health card verification technology has been further utilized and close to 700,000 health cards are verified each month. A former commissioner with the RCMP was hired by the ministry to assist in eliminating fraud in the health care system.

The benefits from these initiatives will allow us to reinvest savings towards front-line services. For this reason, I have presented a resolution which compliments the minister's efforts and will allow taxpayers to play a

part in the effort to make our health care system even stronger.

Voting against this regulation will restrict front-line services from receiving additional funding that would otherwise have been lost to fraud. Essentially, it's like putting a brick wall in front of an ailing person.

I know all members of this chamber want everyone in Ontario to have a healthy future. For this reason, I encourage all of you to vote in favour of this resolution.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I commend the member for Etobicoke-Humber on bringing this resolution forward for debate this morning. But let's go back to take a look at what is actually happening today in health care and the mess that has been created over the past two short years by this government, in terms of health care. There are many aspects of health care that I would think the member might have wanted to speak on today, might have wanted to bring to the attention of the health minister, his cabinet colleagues and his colleagues in the government caucus.

We have to remember that health care in our province is probably one of our proudest achievements, something governments in the past have worked on to develop, to make it that, a very proud achievement of government. But now we have a resolution coming forward based on mistrust. He's basing the resolution on the mistrust of not only the patients but the health care workers, the medical professionals that we depend on every day.

It is not, by any means, common sense or revolutionary when we come forward with a resolution based on mistrust of those people out there on the front lines, of the patients who use what, again, I consider one of the greatest achievements in this province, our health care system. For those people who are working in it, I feel the member has actually said that we now mistrust that profession.

When we talk about the health care system in Ontario, I just said that in the past two years we've seen it deteriorate to a point where it is scary for some of the people that have to make use of it. I think of a woman here in Toronto who had to deliver her baby behind a counter. We're not talking about some Third World country; we're talking about right here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

To go back to the member's resolution, why isn't he talking about some of these deficiencies, some of the things that are happening, the insecurities, the worries patients have?

My constituents have to travel to receive much of their health care, whether it be into another province, into Winnipeg, or whether it be some five or six hours to Thunder Bay. A lot of that travel is done in very adverse weather conditions. I thought the member would be speaking a little more about how we can get health care to patients where they need it, when they need it.

I think we have an obligation to make sure that the health care system does work. As I've indicated, it's one of our greatest assets, something that members on all sides of the House are very proud of in terms of achievement. But I don't feel that coming at the health care system and those who use it in this way is going to be beneficial to many. Changes need to be made, but change has come about, and we can't really go ahead with changes if they're going to be destructive. I feel this resolution is being destructive in that it puts much mistrust into our system.

When we listen carefully to the resolution put forward this morning, we hear the voice of the government's real leader. This is actually a resolution that I would have expected from somebody like Preston Manning of the Reform Party. If you take a close look at the wording, it very much sounds like Preston Manning speaking to us here this morning, a resolution based on mistrust of not only the people who receive it but the health care givers.

I think of our health care system as being one of the greatest national treasures we have. It's a defining element of our society, one we must certainly protect. What the member is doing here is putting much mistrust into that system. Because of that system we have a quality of life here in Ontario which is the best in the world, again something that we on all sides should be very proud of, the medicare we've developed here in Ontario and Canada.

Even though we have to take a look at moving ahead in some areas, there are many other areas this member could have looked at in terms of ensuring a good health care system in our province. He might have wanted to look at some of the crises being created by his Minister of Health at the present time, the unnecessary crises being created, to look at how we could maybe have averted or brought solutions to some of those.

A system to bill patients, to show them their billings, when we have line-ups in emergency rooms is not something I would have considered a priority of any member in this House. Some of my constituents face many crises in terms of the health care system, whether it has been travelling outside of the region, whether it has been the ability to gain access to front-line health care when they actually need it in our local institution. These are things my constituents face every day. Seeing their bills at the end of the month is really not a priority to them at this time.

As I have indicated, the member's resolution is worth review, but I think he should have taken a little closer look at how we could have cleaned up some of the mess that has been created in our health care system today.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I commend the member Mr Ford for bringing in this resolution. I assume he brings it in in the form of a resolution as opposed to a private member's bill because of the rules surrounding private members' bills, in that they're not allowed to spend government money. This resolution of course would cost money. Unless I missed it, and I tried to listen to Mr Ford, I didn't hear him tell us how much it would cost to implement this system.

I see nothing wrong in principle with this system. As a matter of fact, I can recall, in another life, recommending to another health minister that we do something like this to try and make people understand how much they themselves were costing the system -- not that that would mean it was illegitimate but that there would be a sense of accountability, that people themselves would say, "I cost the system so much this month," and I think some people would be very surprised. Also, of course, it would put an element of accountability back on the person delivering the service, such as the doctor. I thought it was not a bad thing to have that happen.

But the response I got from health ministers was that, no, it's too complicated and, second, that the medical profession would go berserk if you imposed this upon them, because they would have to be part of this exercise -- presumably it wouldn't be done without their cooperation and without their agreement -- and they would never agree to that. I don't know that for sure, but I must say that I personally don't think it's such a bad thing to have this degree of accountability in the system, but we've got to get the doctors on side.

It would be very simple, it seems to me, for each doctor at the end of the month, or quarterly, if you wish --I don't really care -- to send to their patients what services they had provided. That would be a very simple form of auditing if the Ontario government wanted to audit that. They could at any point do a random audit to determine whether what had been delivered was what the doctor had billed OHIP for. I'm not imputing motives here to the doctors, but it seems to me that it's a caution that the system needs. Right now, there are very few checks and balances on how the doctors bill the system, and I think this would not be an entirely bad thing.

I must say, though, I was a bit taken aback by the very partisan nature of the member's remarks when he's trying to get support for a private member's resolution. I remember that the Liberals had trouble with the health card and we had trouble with the health card. When we were developing a new card, I was always taken aback by how expensive these cards were, because we were trying to develop a smart card that would have all sorts of information encoded in it. I'm not quarrelling with Mr Ford's numbers.

I've forgotten some of them specifically, but I think he's done his research well in that those probably are the correct numbers, of $129 million to set it up, I think he said, and then $25 million per annum to keep it going. Those are very high numbers.

I can remember the present Minister of Health, Mr Jim Wilson, who was then the health critic for the third party, the PCs, the Tories, on his feet ranting and raving as only Jim Wilson can rant and rave, and he ranted and raved in opposition much more dramatically and with much more flair than he ever has done in government. I miss that part of Jim Wilson, but nevertheless I think his health is probably better because of it.

He was on his feet in this Legislature claiming that the existing health cards, because of the element of fraud, were costing the taxpayers of this province something like $700 million a year. It was as high as that. Guess what? Here we are in the third year of the Tories' mandate and we've got the same cards. Isn't that irresponsible on the part of the health minister, to say one day that the system is costing fraud of up to $700 million a year and then not do anything about it for over two years? I don't know where his head is at. Well, I'm afraid to guess.

Mr Ford: What about the 1-800 number?

Mr Laughren: You can say that setting up a 1-800 number and hiring a retired Mountie is going to solve the problem. Well, excuse me. I've seen the Mounties in operation and I'm not impressed.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: I'm not impressed by the RCMP. I don't care what the member opposite says, I've seen them in operation for too long. If you think that hiring an out-to-pasture RCMP officer and setting up a 1-800 number is going to solve $700 million worth of fraud -- the minister said that the problem was not that; the problem was the cards. That's what he said. He said the problem was the cards. Where are the new smart cards? I don't see them anywhere.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The fingerprints are coming.

Mr Laughren: Yes, they'll fingerprint everybody in the province and that'll solve the problem.

I must say that I come to this debate not closed-minded about it, because I think there does need to be more accountability in the system, but I think it's also important to hold the present Minister of Health accountable for what he said when he was in opposition and what he has not done now that he's in government. That's what's lacking in this debate at this point.

I think Mr Ford's intentions are correct, but I don't think the equation is complete without him telling us how much this is going to cost, because that's the argument you'll get. If you go to the Minister of Health or the Minister of Finance and say, "This is what we want to do," they will come back at you very quickly and tell you how much it costs, and perhaps they'll use the argument as well that "No, no, this would upset the medical profession."

It seems to me you've given the medical profession enough of a raise that they should swallow hard and accept something like this. That's what they should do. Now's the time to go after them. They should be happy. They should be falling down on their knees in gratitude for the way you've treated them, so maybe this is the time to say to them, "Now it's time for you to deliver some more accountability in the system." It shouldn't be only the long-suffering taxpayer who provides accountability and pays for it. That should be part of the cost of operating a medical office.

Why shouldn't it be? If I go and get my car fixed and I don't have to pay the mechanic that day, you can be sure that at the end of the month I'll get a bill from him telling me what it is I owe him and what service he provided for that money. When I go to my doctor I give him my health card and that's the end of it. I happen to believe that the doctors with whom I deal have been very honest and very professional, but who knows? I don't know what bills are sent in to OHIP and nobody else does either. All I know is that OHIP pays them.

I remember a number of years ago going into the OHIP office in Sudbury, when there used to be an OHIP office there, and saying, "How do you know if a doctor is overbilling the system?" This was 20 years ago. They said to me, "We have a system that if they bill more than $10,000 a month we do a quickie audit." That's 20 years ago; that would be the equivalent of $30,000 or $40,000 a month now, I presume. That's not very much of an audit on the system. I think it's time something is done. I think it's time the medical profession comes to grips with this, because I think they at least owe the system that much.

I think I will support this resolution. I want to do a little more thinking about it in the next hour, but I think I will support this resolution because it does bring some accountability into the system. I regret the tone of some of the words of Mr Ford, but I don't question at all his motivation or the reason he has brought this forward. I thought he took some cheap shots in his remarks that were unnecessary, but I've been known to do the same thing so I should hardly pass judgement on Mr Ford.

As I say, the jury's still out with me, but I've got an opportunity now to listen to some of the comments from the other members. I will decide at 12 o'clock whether I'm going to support Mr Ford's resolution.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I'll keep my remarks very short, very brief, not because of any lack of interest in this resolution but because it's so straightforward. I don't think it takes any philosophy to figure out that this resolution makes sense. This resolution, if adopted as a policy, would serve as both an educational tool and an additional safeguard against health fraud.

First, it would give all Ontarians a better idea of how their tax dollars are being spent. In that sense I consider this resolution to be a matter of freedom of information as well. I don't buy the criticism that's just been expressed that providing an expense statement is a scheme to put pressure on sick people not to visit their doctor or pressure on the system itself. Perhaps this would prevent an otherwise healthy person who has a stuffy nose from visiting the hospital emergency some Sunday afternoon or Sunday morning -- I have no problem with that -- but if someone truly needs to see the doctor, I doubt they change their mind because of any guilt regarding how much it costs the system.

Although many Ontarians have visits to the dentist covered by benefit packages -- I have one, and I get the expense statements; they are made for me and all the patients -- to my knowledge this has not prevented anyone from making a dental appointment. It certainly did not do that to me. Nor would a similar statement of account of health care have any effect whatsoever.

Everybody already knows that health care is not free. We all pay for it through our taxes and it is there for us to use. However, by making it widely known what the exact costs of health services are, expense statements would lead to more informed public debate when it comes to health care. More important to me, it would be empowering every individual to effectively stand guard against health care fraud. It would also cast aside any suspicions individuals may have regarding health providers.

We have all read or heard about the small number of health care providers who have billed inaccurately for services performed. Unfortunately, even one bad apple can unfairly cast a negative perception on an entire profession. But by showing patients what their health provider has billed OHIP in black and white, we can remove all doubts and ensure that the good reputation that our health providers deserve continues untarnished.

I want to commend my friend Mr Ford for introducing a long-overdue idea for debate. This resolution is a simple resolution. It's not an earth-shaking resolution. It's a commonsense resolution. It certainly has my support and I hope both sides of this assembly will vote for it.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very happy to speak on this resolution. This is a matter that has been around for some time and we've had discussions about this on previous occasions.

I can recall that when I was the chairman of the public accounts committee and we dealt with health care fraud in the early 1990s, that question was uppermost in people's minds. There was a great deal of discussion around having a proper information system. To accomplish that we needed an integrated health care system, one that was able to tie someone receiving health care in a hospital to what doctors were doing in their local offices, to what community health clinics were doing etc. The model just wasn't there for an information system to be effective.

What you really need to accomplish what you're suggesting -- and by the way, to be able to report all of these expenses in a monthly statement -- is a system that, in addition to having that statement, will integrate the health care that is provided right around the province. We're not quite there yet. When we introduced the health cards as the government, in the next step we were going to follow that up with an education program, and in addition to that provide an information management system.

To this day, the Ministry of Health has not come up with that type of system. As a result, you have a hodge-podge, sort of a helter-skelter approach to understanding what in fact is occurring in the health care system. You need that information system to be able to manage health care in a more comprehensive fashion so we can determine where resources should go in the future. That is lacking.

I think the member would also like to reflect on what his government is doing with respect to that. I don't believe for an instance that this government's priorities are in the right order. They have focused on -- what? -- closing hospitals. Closing hospitals to effect the kind of change we've been talking about? I don't think so. I think the priority on the part of this government should have been to manage a system that would be comprehensive, a system that would be integrated, that would allow us to manage the health care system by dedicating resources, allocating them in a proper fashion.

You need health practitioners to be involved in that. You need not just doctors, but all the health practitioners to be involved in that kind of integrated system. You need to look at the health care system in a more comprehensive way so that you have the ability then to manage the system through the information that's gathered. If you lack that information, then obviously you're not able to hold, not only the system accountable in a financial sense but accountable in terms of its effectiveness, so that proper planning can take place, so that we can plan for future allocations, future needs in the system.

The current sitting Chair also put forward some proposals at the time with respect to health cards which would have enhanced the ability of the cards to screen out fraudulent cases that were brought forward, to screen out abuse. I can recall the recommendations that the member who is sitting in the chair currently, the member for Carleton East, was making in those days, which would have made the cards far more effective as a device for screening abuse and fraud.

Again, that's part of the story. I think what this fails to recognize is that we don't have an integrated information system. We don't have a health care system. We have a series of services that are available. You would go see your family physician; you might go see a specialist; you might go to the hospital; you might go to a clinic. All of these separate venues, separate ways of accessing the system, are not tied together so that we can in fact understand what's going on.

Before we move in this direction, it would be very useful to get a full debate on what's going on in health care today, what this government is doing by way of priority to dismantle the system. It's not making the system more comprehensive; it's not integrating the services that are being provided; it's not doing any of that. What it's doing is taking away services by closing hospitals, by ensuring that there is chaos in the system and that there are gaps in services through this transitional period.

Even though we don't support the closure of hospitals, you still haven't got a way to deal with the transitional period in an effective fashion. We're seeing example after example each and every day of people being shuttled around from one hospital to another. We heard about women who were having babies in hallways because there aren't enough facilities. We heard about another situation where a man died in a hallway in a Peterborough hospital.

This is the state of health care in Ontario, and therefore we should be recognizing that the priority has to be to make sure the system is working effectively and providing the services that are necessary.

Interjections.

Mr Cordiano: Otherwise, I say to the backbenchers, if you're listening, you're going to pay the political price come 1999.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Niagara Falls, you're not in your seat.

Go ahead, you still have two minutes.

Mr Cordiano: My colleague was going to speak.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll have to recognize the member for Sault Ste Marie first. We'll go in rotation.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Are we going to stop the time, Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Whatever time is left, you'll get it. Now I will recognize the member for Sault Ste Marie. No?

Mr Cordiano: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We lost 30 seconds on that.

The Deputy Speaker: We'll make sure that you get it. Further debate?

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I stand today in support of the resolution before the House from the member for Etobicoke-Humber. He's put a lot of thought into this because he knows how precious each dollar of health care spending is, and he knows people want to make sure it's going to the right place, for priority services for the people of Ontario, who give up some hard-earned tax dollars and want to know they're getting the best system possible for their tax dollars. That fits in exactly with what the Ministry of Health is doing with its changes, to make sure the patient gets the right care, at the right place, at the right time.

Mr Ford's resolution hits on two important fronts. First of all, it educates the taxpayer and the recipient of Canada's finest health care system about how much it costs for a particular service and, more importantly, it brings some accountability to the system so they know that dollars are actually going to the services that are brought forward to OHIP and they know the services are delivered in the best manner possible, to make sure the patients are getting the best care possible out there.

There are a number of methods I want to bring to the House's attention, and the public watching today, in terms of what the ministry has done so far and continues to do to provide education on how health care works in Ontario and, importantly too, to make sure that accountability exists, that dollars are going to the right place for the best possible system of health care in Canada and North America, and in fact with the goal of being the best health care system in the world.

If an individual wants to know how much a particular service cost, or the service they had in a particular year or a time or a place, it's rather simple to do. They can easily go through the information and privacy office and make that request, which will tell them the cost of the services they received, what's been billed to OHIP under their name. In addition, following Mr Ford's suggestions, we do mail out about 170,000 verification notices each year.

The way that works is that verification notice is sent out randomly across the province and it will list a particular individual, the services that individual had, the provider of that service and the approximate cost to the taxpayer of that service. We ask that individual to say, "Yes, Tim Hudak had this particular service on this date," to verify that it was the provider who did that service, to make sure that billing through OHIP is done completely accurately and to get rid of any inaccurate billings through the OHIP system.

In fact, Ontarians care so much about how their tax dollars are spent, especially on health care, that we have an over 70% reporting rate on the verification to say, "Yes, this is a service I had," or if not, then it goes back through OHIP to distinguish what happened and to correct any inaccuracies and also to act as a deterrent, to make sure each OHIP billing, those precious health care dollars, are services delivered to the hardworking people of Ontario. It's an excellent system.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): That's good.

Mr Hudak: The member for Niagara Falls likes that system. I'm pleased to tell the member and the rest of the House that it's the goal of the ministry to double what we're doing in that area in the near future, so even more notices to verify that health care dollars are being spent at the right place, at the right time.

Furthermore, there's been some talk, starting with the member for Etobicoke-Humber, about the number of OHIP cards that were sent out by the Peterson Liberal government, a crime in term of taxpayers' money wasted by improper cards being issued to everybody, let alone Ontario residents, but going to Americans who don't pay taxes in Ontario into the system. There were cases I remember back in the Peterson government, and the member for Niagara Falls may remember this too, in terms of animals getting OHIP cards.

Minister Wilson did, in opposition, speak very strongly about that, saying that health care dollars cannot be going to somebody's pony or somebody's dog. Since being in office, the minister has moved very swiftly to make sure the OHIP cards charging our system go to Ontario taxpayers and no one else -- no dogs, no horses, no people from out-of-country -- to make sure those dollars go to Ontario residents.

I'll give you some examples. Since taking office in 1995, 1.7 million people receiving new or replacement health cards have gone through very strict eligibility tests. The records are updated constantly as a result of agreements with the registrar general and Immigration Canada. We've engaged in reciprocal interprovincial agreements that notify the ministry when residents relocate to provinces outside Ontario. They would no longer be eligible to receive benefits or make claims in Ontario if they live in other provinces or countries.

We are working with the RCMP and I think they do an excellent job. I disagree strongly with the member for Nickel Belt. I've worked with the RCMP, and in my experience in having worked on the border at Canada Customs with the RCMP, I would give glowing praise to the hardworking members of the RCMP, the work they've done in Niagara. We work with them and Immigration Canada to retrieve invalid health cards.

The three measures I mentioned above have resulted, the member for Etobicoke-Humber will be glad to see, in 14,000 corrections per month to our health care records, making up for those Liberal OHIP cards that were sent out in the late 1980s -- I forget what he said; some 20 million I think was the number he quoted -- 14,000 corrections per month making up for that mistake by the previous Peterson-McGuinty government. There were way too many cards, like I said, going to all kinds of people and animals and creatures that don't pay taxes into the system.

We've also increased the number of voice-activated health card verification units in the province, to call and make sure that card belongs to whom it says it does, by over 1,300 of these machines, and 18,000 health professionals throughout Ontario now verify patients' health numbers by phone. There are now more than 2,500 Visa-type swipe units in doctors' offices, in hospitals, in labs and pharmacies to verify the accuracy of these cards. In my riding of Niagara South I've received several comments from health care professionals who say that's a great idea.

At some time, being along the border, we had some people from other countries coming in with fraudulent OHIP cards and charging those dollars to the Ontario taxpayer. I certainly praise the actions of this government and the Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, in expanding that number of swipe units to verify that these cards belong to whom they say they belong and they are Ontario taxpayers and Ontario residents. That number has gone up significantly.

Let me say too that we have created a 1-800 fraud line to report to the government instances of health care fraud that are followed up very closely. For those members and those watching who may not know the number, it's 1-800-268-1154. I'd urge all members here today who are paying rapt attention to my speech, my remarks on this issue, to write that down, I would suggest, because your constituents may be calling, having heard my remarks. I say to my fellow parliamentary assistant, the member for Scarborough Centre, 1-800-268-1154. The member for Niagara Falls already has it memorized.

I think the member across, for Kenora, in his remarks didn't have any regard for getting accountancy into the system. He talked about any kinds of verifications or methods to make sure health care dollars are going to the right place as somehow developing mistrust in the system. I guess that's the same kind of attitude that caused the Peterson-McGuinty Liberals to send out whatever it was, 20-some million health cards, because they wanted to get those red and white cards out there before an election or something like that. They didn't really care whom it was going to and treated taxpayers' dollars and health care dollars without the due concern they deserve.

You can see that the attitude that you should just throw the money at the situation and not try to direct health care dollars to priority areas still exists in the Liberal Party today when you hear the remarks from the member for Kenora, who doesn't seem at all to apologize for the dreadful waste of taxpayers' dollars that we're still making up for in Ontario today.

Every dollar saved goes into priority care services like kidney dialysis, more money into cancer care, more money into treating heart disease. In fact, the member talked about what he viewed as an important area: emergency rooms in rural and northern communities. Certainly without the actions of this minister and this government to keep open approximately 70 emergency rooms across the province that would have closed if this government had not acted, residents in those 70 communities would have gone without emergency services.

But we know the priorities in the province, invested the money in those emergency rooms and kept open approximately 70 rural and northern emergency units. With the recent release of the rural and northern health care framework, the ministry has recognized, and is reinforcing the importance of, receiving health care close to home, with 24-hour access to emergency services in those communities so that they can get the care at the right place, at the right time.

At the same time Norman Inkster, an esteemed member of the RCMP and currently working with KPMG Investigation and Security Inc, has been given the ability to do a special investigation into OHIP and other types of health care fraud to make recommendations to the minister for improvement. We expect Mr Inkster's report in the coming months.

You can see clearly the difference here between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Mr Ford, the member for Etobicoke-Humber, very strongly wants to see health care dollars going to the right place at the right time. He wants to see some accountability. Compare that to the party across the floor, now in official opposition, that sent out millions of health care cards helter-skelter across the province. I don't even know, the member for Kenora, if they're going to support this resolution to bring accountability to and reinforce accountability in the system to make sure the health care dollars go to the right place at the right time. Mr Speaker, those are my remarks.

Mr Bartolucci: I am pleased to offer a few comments in the little time I have. I'd like to thank the member for Etobicoke-Humber for bringing this resolution before the House because I think he's acting in very good faith. I don't think there is anyone, regardless of what political stripe we are, who doesn't think the system needs some refining.

The concern I have, and I guess it's demonstrated best by Mr Ford's introductory remarks, what concerns me the most, is the way we continue to shut out the stakeholders in Ontario.

When I first read this resolution at the beginning of the week I said: "Gee, it makes a whole lot of sense. I wonder how much real consultation he did?" I find, during his introductory remarks, that we go back to beating up the stakeholders, beating up the people of Ontario. I think Mr Ford's resolution has some merit, but I honestly believe that the Minister of Health should be taking some direction and moving in a way that will meaningfully save money for the people of Ontario. Certainly, although the resolution is worded nicely, I think it's cumbersome. I find it almost impossible to enforce and manage without spending millions and millions of dollars.

If the Mike Harris government really wanted to change the face of health care, other than closing hospitals, or another way, a meaningful way, a way that the people of Ontario could buy into, it might want to invest some money in education and in wellness. This government is doing a miserable job of investing in the education and the wellness of the people of Ontario. This resolution does nothing for that. This resolution simply uses the big stick, the Tory big stick.

It's too bad, because although there would be some merit in the Ministry of Health exploring the possibility, it would have to be managed by something that's less confrontational than this resolution indicates. That's why I won't be supporting it.

Ms Churley: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to ballot item 91, the private member's resolution by Mr Ford. I think I'm going to support it. There are a number of reasons why I'm going to support it, one being that I want to help the government members embarrass the Minister of Health. We know very well that the Minister of Health is not going to let this go through, as I am sure Mr Ford knows.

The Minister of Health, since he got into office after, as my colleague from --

Mr Laughren: Nickel Belt.

Ms Churley: Nickel Belt, thank you. How could I forget, especially as I sit in the chair and know all the members' seats very well?

The member for Nickel Belt said earlier that the present Minister of Health used to sit right over here, and I used to sit over there in the government benches as a cabinet minister and watch the present Minister of Health get absolutely red in the face in rage about the things our government was doing or not doing in health care. He would go on and on. His big issue was fraud in the health care system. He continually and repeatedly ranted and raved about that.

What has he done since he got into government? A 1-800 number, as my friend from Nickel Belt has already said. We've got a 1-800 number and a retired Mountie running some I think small and ineffective -- it's just a PR method, actually. I'm not going to be as hard on the RCMP as my friend from Nickel Belt is, because I have a brother in the RCMP and I'm very proud of his work.

Mr Laughren: He's not out to pasture.

Ms Churley: He's not out to pasture yet, but probably he soon will be.

Seriously, I believe it was incumbent on this Minister of Health to look at doing this sort of thing. I know it's not going to pass, because we're talking about I'm sure huge levels of bureaucracy and millions and millions of dollars to run such a system. We have to get real here. We know what the Minister of Health is going to do. He's not going to support this.

I had an all-party resolution passed here which actually concerns the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment which members from the Conservative Party supported: the phase-out of carcinogens or suspected carcinogens which cause cancer, which is a preventive form of medicine that would save untold agony and the health care system millions of dollars down the road. The Minister of Health won't even meet with me to talk about it. So we know where this is going. I think it's a good message to send to people, however, that there is concern about the lack of accountability in the health care system.

I don't support fraud in any public system. We need to spend money and put resources into weeding out fraud, and because there's such a lack of accountability within the health care system, the medicare system, it's important that we spend more resources and that the Minister of Health get behind this. I don't think this is going to work for a variety of reasons. The minister cannot agree, and I guess I would understand that, to spending that amount of money.

But I think the minister should sit down with Mr Ford, who has obviously done some research here, and see if some system can be worked out that wouldn't be so expensive and cumbersome so that there is more accountability in the health care system. I don't think it's realistic to think that every doctor in this province is going to send out an account to all of his or her patients every month, but notwithstanding whether this resolution passes, the minister is not going to let it go anywhere anyway.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Humber, you have two minutes.

Mr Ford: Listening to the opposition across the floor, I understand some of the principles they're talking about, but I put my question to everybody here in the House. They say there's not that much fraud in a lot of things. In our banking system, for instance, there is not that number of bank robberies for the amount of business they do. If you were a civilian walking along the street and you saw a bank being held up, I will ask you the same thing: Would you as a citizen call the police or just ignore it?

One of our fellow members talked about the issues. The issues is this: We are here as members of the Parliament in this House to represent the public. That is our duty, to represent the public, not to represent our own self-interests. That is why they hired us, to represent them at the best service and at the most economical cost to them.

Sometimes, as members of this House, we have a little lapse of memory: The days we were running for office, the happy day we were elected to office and the days we serve our constituents. To me, that's what I'm doing here. I'm trying to find ways and means of serving our constituents, regardless of what stripe, what colour or what political background, so that we can service them.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE JOUR DES LOYALISTES DE L'EMPIRE-UNI

Mr Danford moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 150,

An Act proclaiming United Empire Loyalists' Day / Projet de loi 150, Loi proclamant le jour des Loyalistes de l'Empire-Uni.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), you have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It is indeed a pleasure for me to move second reading of Bill 150,

An Act proclaiming United Empire Loyalists' Day.

I would like to begin by thanking Bernice Flett of the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada for her help in drafting this bill. Bernice is in the gallery today, along with so many other members of her association. Other guests as well are members of the Monarchist League of Canada; members of the Ontario Black History Society; representatives of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte; and representatives of the Queen's York Rangers, a militia regiment led by Ontario's first Lieutenant Governor, Sir John Graves Simcoe. I would also like to thank the members of the King's Royal Regiment of New York for escorting me to the chamber this morning.

The Loyalist heritage is an important part of Ontario's history. As I am sure members will know, the original Loyalists were groups of American citizens who left America after the United States gained their independence, and they came for many reasons. Some were soldiers who settled here; some were persecuted for remaining loyal to the crown; yet others came because they were unable to fight because of their religious beliefs.

Loyalists were forced to leave the United States because of their wish to remain loyal to the crown. It was common practice to be persecuted for remaining loyal before and after the War of Independence. Loyalists at times were tarred and feathered and had other acts committed against them, not just by mobs, mind you, but by unjust laws as well. In 1776, the Provincial Congress of New York went so far as to order the purchase of all the pitch and tar necessary for the public's use and safety. Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that they did not do this to start a public roofing project.

After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, loyalty to the crown became grounds for treason. Failure to take an oath of loyalty to the state in which you lived meant possible imprisonment, confiscation of property, banishment and, yes, even death. If you did not take the oath, you became an outlaw. If you were a lawyer, doctor or other professional you could not practise. You could not be an executor of an estate, or if your neighbour owed you money, you had no redress.

The Continental Congress, in a move to bolster their treasury, recommended to the states that they appropriate the property of residents who had forfeited "the right to protection of the revolutionary government." It was recommended that states invest the proceeds of the land sales in continental loan certificates. In other words, proceeds from the sale of confiscated lands were to fund the war effort against the crown. As Loyalists began leaving the 13 colonies during the revolutionary war, large sums of money from the sale of confiscated Loyalist properties began to find their way into state treasuries. Loyalists felt they had no choice but to leave the country.

The Loyalists were Canada's first multicultural immigration. They were not just British Tories who benefited from the patronage of the crown. French Protestants, German pacifists, African-Americans, they were all part of the Loyalist migration. As a matter of fact, one of the largest groups of Loyalists was the Iroquois Confederacy, led by Joseph Brant who came to Ontario from New York state. As a reward for remaining loyal to the crown, they were given a tract of land six miles wide on either side of the Grand River and they were given land at Akwesasne near present-day Cornwall.

Many of the German and French Loyalists, who had decided to honour their oaths of loyalty to the crown or were unable to fight due to their religious beliefs, established agricultural settlements around Niagara where they supplied the British garrison there with food. These Loyalists soon moved to the area around Brantford named for the celebrated first nations chief.

By way of statistics, the Loyalist migration to Ontario began shortly after the US War of Independence and really took off after 1783. By 1788 the population of the region had passed 10,000. As a result of the Loyalist migration, one thing was certain: that changes had to be made in the way the colony was governed.

The Quebec Act of 1774 was the legislative authority that provided for the administration of what was then the province of Quebec. This was satisfactory to a majority of the population of the lower St Lawrence but not for the Loyalist settlers. The court system and land tenure system were not known to many of the new settlers and they found them very difficult to understand.

It became clear that the government needed to establish a Legislature, but it believed that divisions between the established Canadiens and the new settlers, as well as the unwieldy size and shape of the existing colony, made one Legislature impractical.

As a result of these concerns, the British government decided to introduce the Constitutional Act, which divided the province of Quebec into predominantly francophone Lower Canada and predominantly anglophone Upper Canada. It was this act that set up elected legislatures in the new provinces, and in Upper Canada it established a system of courts and land tenure modelled after Britain. The Constitutional Act received royal assent on June 19, 1791.

New freedoms were found in Canada at the time of the Loyalists that were not to be found in either Britain or the United States. On July 9, 1793, the Legislature of Upper Canada passed

an act that put an end to slavery. This was 50 years before the same thing happened in Britain and 70 years before the famous emancipation proclamation in the United States.

The Loyalists settled much of what is now Ontario. Their impact is seen in many of our towns, universities, colleges and other institutions that bear many Loyalist names. As a matter of fact, the first Premier of Ontario, John Sandfield MacDonald, was Loyalist.

In eastern Ontario in particular, the Loyalist influence is very pronounced. In 1784, the Loyalists landed at Adolphustown in Lennox and Addington county. This was the last landing of significant size of Loyalists in Upper Canada. The counties and townships of eastern Ontario were all settled by Loyalists.

The Loyalist influence is seen all around us today. As a result of this, I believe that the Loyalist tradition belongs to all Ontarians, whether their ancestors were Loyalists or not. The Loyalists worked on behalf of all subjects of the crown and citizens of Canada and not simply for those belonging to a Loyalist club.

The Loyalist heritage led to the development of Canada, with its bilingual, multicultural and regional traditions under the unifying context of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. This is the tradition that sets Canada apart from other nations. We should be proud of it and celebrate it.

To be a Loyalist means more than just the ties of historic ancestry. Loyalists earned their place in Canadian history through their self-sacrificing dedication to their new country.

Distinguished Ontarians like Hal Jackman, Galen Weston and former Ontario Treasurer Robert Nixon are descended from the Loyalists, as is Brian Orser, the skater. The Right Honourable Ellen Fairclough is a Loyalist. So was former Governor General Roland Michener. Chief Joseph Deseronto of the Tyendinagas was a Loyalist. Egerton Ryerson, the founder of our public education system in Ontario, was also a Loyalist. Pauline Johnson, the Mohawk poet, was a Loyalist. First World War air ace Billy Bishop was a Loyalist, and countless other Loyalists and their descendants have given much to this province and indeed to this country.

The Loyalists complement the multicultural character of modern Ontario society. Catholic highlanders, Scottish Presbyterians, German Calvinists and Lutherans, the Dutch, all came in the Loyalist migration. A substantial number of black ex-slaves had fought for the British crown and had been freed. This group settled not only in Ontario but Nova Scotia and other British colonies in the Caribbean. These peoples have all left an indelible mark on Ontario society. This is something that we would celebrate on United Empire Loyalists' Day.

The very motto of this province, "Loyal in the beginning, so remaining," which is inscribed on our coat of arms, speaks to the contribution of the Loyalists. It was itself developed by Loyalists as a constant reminder of their role in our province's development.

In closing, I would like to ask all the members to again recognize the historic importance of the Loyalists by supporting this bill. Ontario would not be the same without the Loyalist tradition. By recognising June 19 as United Empire Loyalists' Day, we will be celebrating the Loyalist contribution, not just to Ontario but indeed to Canada. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and God save the Queen.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): We in the Liberal Party will of course be supporting this private member's bill. One of the things we in Canada and in Ontario sometimes are not particularly good at is recognizing our historical roots. I would like to congratulate the representatives of the group in the gallery for filling the important function of providing us with reminders on a daily basis of how this province came to be, how our history came to be. Some members would know that my educational background is in history, particularly in Canadian and Ontario and Quebec history, and I find that what these folks do is terribly important.

I also appreciate what the member has done by bringing this important bill before the Legislature, because it reminds us of our roots and the important contributions made through the years by people here in Ontario and in Canada. Sometimes, if we had a better understanding of where we've been, we could see the future much more clearly.

In speaking to this bill, I think you have to talk about revolution. I think you have to understand what happened in the present United States of America. It's significant, for example, that when we refer to it we refer to it here in Canada as the American Revolution. If you were on the other side of the border, you would refer to it as the War of Independence. That in itself speaks volumes, just the way we refer to the particular historical event.

The history of the American Revolution, at least in part, is one that comes from taxation. The American colonists, if you would believe the War of Independence kind of rhetoric, didn't want taxation without representation. They wanted to be able to make their decisions locally, so to speak, not by a far-off government, a King and Parliament that were an ocean away. That's what they would tell you. If you spoke to the British Parliament or the King at the time, he would say, "We are providing garrisons of British soldiers to protect you, and that is the reason we want you to pay for some of the cost of providing protection in these new colonies in North America."

When Quebec fell to the British -- we're all aware of that -- and the subsequent treaty then awarded Quebec to the British, North America changed significantly. The need for a British garrison to protect British colonies from a French colony was diminished. British policy became one of assimilation at that point in time. British policy at that time became, "We should assimilate Quebec and we should try to force immigration in North America towards Quebec so that we can achieve those goals."

To that end, you'll remember, they passed

an act which prohibited American colonists from going west. They could not go beyond the mountains. The reason for that was to force North American immigration and settlement north into Quebec to have a British presence in a largely -- well, totally at that point -- French-speaking area. That of course caused great consternation in the American colonies or what is now the United States of America.

With the elimination of the need for paying for protection, there was also great concern about the taxation, so we had a revolution, and it was a revolution. Like all revolutions, there were victims, a great number of victims. Our province of Ontario is born largely out of the victims of that particular revolution.

Perhaps now we'll go to a little bit more history. American colonists of varied ethnic backgrounds who supported the British cause during the American Revolution came to Canada. In 1789 Lord Dorchester, the Ggovernor-in-Chief of British North America, proclaimed that Loyalists and their children should be allowed to append UE to their names, alluding to their great principle, the unity of the empire; hence the name United Empire Loyalists. The term applied initially in the Canadian colonies alone. It was officially recognized in the Maritimes only in the 20th century. Of course, the Maritimes were not part of Canada at that point.

In determining who was eligible for war losses, Britain used a fairly precise definition. Loyalists were those born or living in the American colonies at the outbreak of the American Revolution who rendered substantial services to the royal cause during the war and who left the US by the end of the war or soon after. Those who left substantially later, mainly to gain land and to escape growing intolerance of minorities, are often called "late" Loyalists.

The Loyalists supported Britain for highly diverse reasons. Many evinced a personal loyalty to the crown or a fear that the revolution could bring chaos to America. Many agreed with the rebels that America had suffered wrongs at the hands of Britain but believed the solution could be worked out within the empire. Others, seeing themselves as weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender, included linguistic and religious minorities, recent immigrants not fully integrated into the American society, blacks and Indians.

Sympathy for the crown was a dangerous sentiment. Those who defied the revolutionary forces could find themselves without civil rights, subject to mob violence or flung into prison. All the states finally taxed or confiscated Loyalist property. During the revolution over 19,000 Loyalists served Britain in specially created provincial corps, accompanied by several thousand Indians. Others spent the war in such strongholds as New York City or in refugee camps in Quebec. Between 80,000 and 100,000 people eventually fled, half of them to Canada.

The vast majority were neither well-to-do nor particularly high in social rank; most were farmers. Ethnically they were quite mixed and many were recent immigrants. White Loyalists brought sizeable contingents of slaves with them. Free blacks and escaped slaves who had fought in the Loyalist corps and as many as 2,000 Indian allies, mostly Six Nations Iroquois from New York, settled in Canada. The main waves of Loyalists came to what is now Canada in 1783 and 1784.

The Maritimes became home for upwards of 30,000; Ontario became home for about 7,500; about 2,000 moved to present-day Quebec and settled in the Gaspé; 7,500 here in Ontario, as I said, along the St Lawrence and Bay of Quinte, also substantial settlements in the Niagara Peninsula and near where I was born and raised, in the Sarnia area, with subsidiary and later settlements along the Thames River; and of course the Grand River was the main focus of the Loyalist Iroquois settlement.

The Loyalist influx gave the region its first substantial population and led to the creation of a separate province, Upper Canada, later Canada West, later Ontario. Loyalists were very instrumental in establishing educational, religious, social and governmental institutions. Though greatly outnumbered by later immigrants, Loyalists and their descendants, such as Egerton Ryerson, exerted a strong and lasting influence.

Modern Canada and this province have inherited much from the Loyalists, including a certain conservatism, a preference for evolution rather than revolution in matters of government, and of course the strong tendency towards a pluralistic and heterogeneous society.

It's hard to understand how this group has not been honoured with a day long before today, because substantially they were and still are leaders of this province and have put a stamp on this country that I think most of us who favour a pluralistic and heterogeneous and evolutionary society would appreciate.

I have here some letters in support of this. I'm bringing these to the House today on behalf of Mr Cleary, the member for Cornwall. He has received letters from quite a number of people in the Cornwall area who are very supportive of this. Of course, Cornwall has a sizeable Loyalist population. I'm just going to read one that I think would be representative of them all:

"I wish to put my support towards Bill 150 of Mr Danford, MPP for Hastings-Peterborough, for the introduction of United Empire Loyalists' Day to be 19 June.... This would be an honour to all the founding fathers of Cornwall and area, which they settled after the American War of Independence.

"This group of people were the first truly non-racial group to settle Canada. They include not only Europeans, but African slaves as well, to be free men regardless of religion, race or creed. I have three great-grandfathers who fought with Sir John Johnson's King's Royal Regiment of New York and settled the area, Philip and Peter, for whom Eamers' Corners is named, and Michael Gallinger.

"Please support this bill, as it does show a sense of pride for our local history and the history of this province."

It's signed Michael Eamer, UE.

I have quite a number of these. I recognize the support across this province for this particular bill, which I believe is overdue, and I'm very pleased that Mr Danford has brought this before the House. It is widespread. I congratulate him. I hope this adds to a sense of Ontario's history, that our children and grandchildren will more fully understand and appreciate where a province came from, the evolution it has gone through, and that we will all have a better future, a brighter future, because of this proclamation of a particular day.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I too will be supporting this piece of work brought before us in the House today by the member for Hastings-Peterborough, perhaps for different reasons than others, because I won't stand here for a second and pretend that I know a lot about the United Empire Loyalists; however, I appreciate the contribution they have made to the fabric we call Ontario today.

I think it behooves us all, enriches us all, when we recognize that contribution in the way suggested by the member. It's always valuable to recognize the threads that run through the fabric that makes up Ontario, to recognize the contribution made by those who have participated in the history of the development of the wonderful province we all call home, for those who serve in this place here today and on behalf of the constituents we represent. Indeed this province and this country have a very rich heritage, however young that may be.

We're not a country with the kind of history that some of the countries that border on us have. We have a young history that was cobbled together by numerous groups of people coming here for various reasons, some because of persecution, some to find a new land to have a family, develop a business or an interest and make it home.

I myself came to this country as an immigrant from Ireland. We arrived here in 1960, seven kids, my mother and father, to make a home in Wawa. Our family has become part of the rich heritage of that particular community. When that is recognized, as it was, for example, at a homecoming during the long weekend in August by those who organized that event, as were so many of the other very important families who made up that community over the years, I felt good. I felt a sense of ownership and I felt I wanted to do something to make that community even better. I think that will be the end result of the approval of this bill today and the work of the member for Hastings-Peterborough.

I think it's also important that we remember where we come from. As so many others more eloquent than I have said over the years, if you don't remember where you come from, there is always the possibility of repeating some of the mistakes we have made. I don't think that is in our best interests.

I was educated here this morning. I listened to the presentations by previous speakers, and they taught me a little about why it is that the United Empire Loyalists came to this country originally and the struggle they went through. I think it will stimulate others who have come to take a look at their history, and because of that, all of us as a community of people in the end will be better served.

I know from some of the reading I've done some of the challenges the Irish faced when they came to this country. There was a time when in Ontario to be Irish Catholic was not something you wore on your forehead, was not something you presented in trying to get a job in some of the larger industries in places like Toronto. But we've overcome that. As a community of people bigger than that, as a community of people educated and looking towards a future that included more of us in positive ways, we got beyond that.

In my own community of Sault Ste Marie, for a long time, to be Italian, to have an Italian name, meant you got in line behind those who had a name that was of British ancestry and you didn't get the good jobs, if you got a job at all. I think it behooves us all to remember that that was our history so we don't repeat it again.

In recognizing a group such as the United Empire Loyalists, with the history they bring with them and the difficulties they overcame and the way they have contributed to the fabric of Ontario, we present to others an opportunity to think about their particular experience.

When we put all that together, the rich heritage, remembering where we come from, the struggles we individually and collectively have worked our way through, we become a better country, we become a better province, we become a better community of people, a community of people better able, in a world that gets smaller and smaller, to reach out in more inclusive ways to other peoples, if not by way of our education then by way of our travel and ability to communicate today, and that makes us a better community.

As a matter of fact, Canada, because of its history and because of its openness to other cultures and religions and languages, presents a wonderful opportunity to show the world how people of different histories and traditions can work together in a positive way to build a better future and a better home for our children and our children's children to come and for other people who perhaps are persecuted in other places in the world today.

We don't have to look very far. The issue in the newspapers over the last week or two is the issue of the Gypsies from the Czech Republic. Initially, some may have a very negative and judgemental response to that, but it behooves us for a minute to think back on the response to the arrival of our forefathers to this country or some other jurisdiction in the world where we chose to move to start a new life because where we came from was not supportive of the best that was in us, whether it be our faith, our language or our culture.

To remember a group such as the United Empire Loyalists, who have contributed in such a positive way to the building up of what our wonderful province and country is today, I think is to call on all of us who claim Ontario as home to be ever more vigilant as we look around the world today at peoples who are persecuted, who are looking for a place to call home, so that they might build a future for their children in Canada, a country of vast proportion.

I come from Sault Ste Marie. I often drive home and I see the miles and miles and miles of territory that we have, that we own collectively, that is still to be developed in the best interests of ourselves and of the world, so I think it behooves us as we remember to be open to the possibilities that are there for the future.

I will be supporting this bill today, brought forward by the member for Hastings-Peterborough for all of those very important reasons, and I would ask members of the House to listen to others who will present today and to be enlightened, as I have, by the members who have spoken so far so that you might find it perhaps in your wisdom to support it as well.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity this morning to rise in support of the bill brought forward by my colleague from Hastings-Peterborough, a bill that seeks to recognize the Constitutional Act of June 1791 by making it a recognized holiday in the province of Ontario.

In so doing, we're recognizing a very important milestone in the history, not only of this province but of this entire country and our society. It's important in a number of respects, and I want to acknowledge the point that was just made by my colleague from Sault Ste Marie, who noted that the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists into Canada was part of a tradition that lives on.

We must remember that the Loyalists who came to Canada, by very definition, were immigrants to this country. They were newcomers.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): They were refugees.

Mr Parker: They were refugees; they were war refugees; they were DPs. They were people who were forced to leave their homelands to come to a new land. More than that, they were pioneers. It's often forgotten that at the time of the War of Independence, the United States was a mature, well-developed nation. It had a history that was already about 200 years old. These were not people who were leaving one log cabin to move to another log cabin; these were people who were leaving established societies, friends, homes, jobs to come to a brand-new land where they had to carve a living out of the wilderness.

Loyalists after the War of Independence moved in many directions. Some moved to the West Indies. Some moved to the eastern townships of what is now the province of Quebec. Governor Haldimand, who was the Governor of the colony of Quebec at that time, was responsible for placing the Loyalists in various settlements. Remember that what we now call Quebec and Ontario at that time bore the name alternately Canada or Quebec. He was responsible for the entire province of Quebec, which included present-day Ontario, and he directed the settlement of the United Empire Loyalists into essentially four identifiable areas.

Apart from the eastern townships, within what is now Ontario the Loyalists were settled in the areas of the upper St Lawrence, the Quinte area, the Niagara peninsula and the Grand River, and the Loyalist traditions in those areas live on and, as has been pointed out, the names, the traditions, the history that began in those days is still visible in the names and in the communities in those areas.

I want to take this opportunity in the time available to me to comment at some brief length on the subject of one group of Loyalists who arrived in present-day Ontario at that time and to focus on their highly exceptional, colourful and outstanding leader, Joseph Brant. I am speaking, of course, of the Mohawks.

Joseph Brant was a Mohawk, born in Ohio, moved in the highest circles. He was not in the wilderness. He was a great political and social leader of his day, highly educated, world travelled. He had lived in London for a period of time, was received by King George III, included among his friends James Boswell, one of the leading figures of all of history not just of that time. This was the world Joseph Brant knew and lived in.

Joseph Brant came back to his homeland in New York state and was a major influence in leading the Iroquois Nation in support of the crown in resistance to the revolutionaries who were seeking independence in the War of Independence. He united the Mohawks with many of the Seneca and others of the Six Nations.

Remember, the Six Nations at that time were not a fully unified group. They found their loyalties pulled in different directions. There were some leaders who took some of the Iroquois people into an alliance with the American revolutionaries. Joseph Brant was a leading figure in bringing many of the Iroquois people into alliance and loyalty with the British crown. He fought bravely and his troops fought very effectively on behalf of the crown in the War of Independence, and many victories in that war on behalf of the Loyalist forces were attributed to the contribution made by Joseph Brant and by the soldiers under his command.

There's a bit of a romantic myth that the Six Nations reserve on the Grand River today was granted to Joseph Brant and the Mohawks as

an act of generosity and spontaneous gratitude by the crown, out of gratitude for the good work the Mohawks had delivered to the crown during the war and for the effectiveness of Joseph Brant's leadership. That is not untrue, but I think it's important we notice that it was also the result of some good, solid hard bargaining by Joseph Brant.

In the treaty that ended the War of Independence, there were various compensations that were arrived at and established at the treaty table between the newly established United States of America and the British government. One of the groups that was forgotten at that table, quite frankly, was Joseph Brant and the Mohawks. Joseph Brant wasn't about to put up with that. Joseph Brant went to Governor Haldimand at the time, who was the Governor of the colony of Canada, the colony of Quebec, and he demanded on behalf of his people that the British crown grant him compensation for what they had lost in what became the state of New York.

The literature isn't altogether clear on why the Grand River site was chosen. Remember, there was also John Deserontyon, another Mohawk leader, a leader of a slightly smaller group, the Upper Mohawks, who was granted a settlement in what is now called Deseronto. The literature would suggest that there was some thought of putting the Upper Mohawks, the Joseph Brant Mohawks, in the same area with Deserontyon. It's suggested that maybe Joseph Brant didn't want to be associated with that group and wanted an independent group. It's also suggested that Haldimand wanted to keep them separate, recognizing what a strong force they would be if the two groups were assembled together.

In the end, Haldimand and Brant arrived at an agreement and the Haldimand proclamation of 1784 was granted. I'll just read that to you now:

"Whereas His Majesty having been pleased to direct that in consideration of the early attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk Indians, and of the loss of their settlement they thereby sustained...I do hereby in His Majesty's name authorize and permit the said Mohawk Nation, and such other of the Six Nation Indians as wish to settle in that quarter to take possession of and settle upon the banks of the river commonly called Ours or Grand River, running into Lake Erie, allotting to them for that purpose six miles deep from each side of the river beginning at Lake Erie, and extending in that proportion to the head of the said river, which them and their posterity are to enjoy forever."

There's much more I can speak on the subject. I look forward to another opportunity to add on the subject. I see my time is now up and I'm glad to release my time to others.

Mr Wildman: I rise to support the passage of this bill brought forward by the member for Hastings-Peterborough. It's given us an opportunity that we don't have very often in this assembly to reflect on the history of this province and the importance of various groups in the development of this province.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to think about this and to reflect on that in listening to some of my colleagues because this is one of the many waves of refugees that we in North America are descended from. The initial waves of refugees to the shores of North America from Europe often were trying to escape religious persecution. Some were trying to escape economic deprivation. Many of the Scots and Irish obviously came to North America subsequently when their lands were confiscated by the nobles, who were enclosing the lands to raise sheep and thereby displaced people.

These refugees, United Empire Loyalists, were trying to escape political and economic persecution related to the fact that they remained loyal to the crown, in opposition to the revolutionaries who were arguing that they should not have to pay taxes without representation. They argued that they were not properly represented.

I find it somewhat ironic, and my friend from Hastings-Peterborough might agree that it is somewhat ironic, that a revolutionary government of which he is a member is bringing forward this resolution celebrating those who opposed revolution; or the government that is amalgamating school boards in the province today and thus in many parts of the north, where we will have enormous geographic areas, depriving people of representation on those boards that will be taxing them; that we are here celebrating that this morning.

I appreciated the comments of the member for York East about Joseph Brant and the Mohawks, the Iroquois Nation, the Six Nations, who supported the British and were allies of the British. I think it's important for us to recognize that in giving them their lands, in some cases the British were depriving the Ojibway Nation of lands. The Mohawks were immigrants to Canada in that sense. They had a history, of course, of war on the Huron, who were allies of the French previously. As allies first of the Dutch and then of the British, they had made incursions into what was Ontario and Quebec previously.

When I hear some members -- and I have heard some members -- say, "Why do the aboriginal people think these treaties are so important? why do they think the rights that were recognized in those treaties should be preserved?" they forget that those treaties were not signed between a conqueror and a defeated nation, but between two nations that decided to cooperate with each other in both of their interests against a common enemy.

We owe a debt to those people. That was again demonstrated in the War of 1812. We have welcomed refugees and the aboriginal people have welcomed refugees, wave after wave after wave, in Canada. We should be celebrating that past, and for that reason I support this bill.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I join in complimenting my colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough for bringing forward this quite appropriate bill for consideration by the House, acknowledging the contribution of United Empire Loyalists to Ontario, the old Upper Canada, and to Canada's heritage. This is a very important group of mixed background, which has been noted.

Many people view the United Empire Loyalists as British Tories and limit their view of the group to that group, but as my colleagues have pointed out, there were pacifists, Germans, French Protestants, German Calvinists, German Lutherans, Catholic Highlanders, Scottish Presbyterians and First Canadians also as part of that group, which is a more accurate description of that part of Ontario history, the history of Upper Canada.

I support the bill, of course, because I believe, as other members do, in the importance of recognizing, first of all, that we are all Canadians, but second, that we have a rich and diverse heritage not only in Canada but also in the early history of Upper Canada.

My own family emigrated from Ireland in the 1830s to St John, New Brunswick. My wife's family, on the other hand, is a United Empire Loyalist family from the Brockville area of Ontario in the county of Leeds. Those are the Elliott and Phillips families, many of whom still reside along the shores of the St Lawrence in central and eastern Ontario. The diligence and dedication of the United Empire Loyalists is clear when one looks at the architecture of eastern Ontario and the vitality of the communities of eastern Ontario, particularly along the St Lawrence.

I also want to comment briefly on the contribution of the United Empire Loyalists, among others, but in particular the United Empire Loyalists, to the development of our parliamentary tradition in Upper Canada; our system of land registration, which has been crucially important to the economic development and success of what is present-day Ontario; and also our system of justice, incorporating the Equity Courts, the Chancery Courts of the United Kingdom and also the great tradition of British common law. Two of our most important and seminal statutes came from that time, namely, the Quebec Act of 1774, followed by the Constitutional Act of 1791 establishing this elected assembly.

I join with my colleagues in support of this bill and I compliment the member for Hastings-Peterborough for bringing it forward.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm very pleased to stand in support of my comrade and friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough on this excellent idea through private members' bills today.

They say everybody is Irish on St Patrick's Day, so why not give everybody a chance to be an Empire Loyalist on Empire Loyalist Day on June 19 from here on in?

Although I cannot make a claim to Loyalist ancestry myself, I fully support this bill which recognizes a special place in Ontario's history that these immigrants represent in the social and economic development of our young colony.

The Niagara area, which is home for me, born and raised in Niagara, is also particularly rich in Loyalist tradition, thanks to Colonel John Butler and his Rangers and many of his Mohawk and Seneca allies under the great Joseph Brant, whom we've heard mentioned many times today. This band of about 1,200 Loyalists fought valiantly out of their base in Fort Niagara in present-day Lewiston, New York, against the forces of republicanism and rebellion in the States.

After the American Revolution, Butler and his allies crossed the Niagara River and settled in many communities throughout the peninsula. They were joined by hundreds of Loyalists of all descents, especially from the New York and Pennsylvania areas.

Reading through the history, you see that life was not easy at all for the early Loyalist immigrants. Some spent years in temporary quarters before moving on to build homes and farms in the wilderness. The year 1789 was known as the hungry year, as the previous year's crops were ruined by extreme heat. Overhunting had depleted game in Niagara's forests, yet the Loyalists survived, and at this time eight townships had been established in the northern part of the Niagara Peninsula.

Newark, now known as Niagara-on-the-Lake, became one of the young colony's first metropolises. The history of this very House in fact dates back to Newark, the first seat of government in Upper Canada. Had Newark not been so close to the border, facing the constant threat of American invasion in those days, it may have been the city that Toronto is today and we'd be cheering for the Niagara-on-the-Lake Maple Leafs instead of a Toronto team.

Shortly thereafter, many more townships were settled throughout Niagara, including those communities like Port Colborne, Fort Erie, and Wainfleet in my riding of Niagara South, with a great number of Pennsylvania Quaker and Mennonite families in that area.

These Loyalists went on to achieve many great things shortly thereafter. They defended the vulnerable Niagara Frontier in the War of 1812 against daunting odds. William Hamilton Merritt, one Loyalist descendant who fought the American invaders, later went on to build the Welland Canal as well as various railroads and bridges throughout the Niagara Peninsula and Upper Canada.

About 40,000 Niagarans today can trace their roots back to Loyalist beginnings. Surnames well known in Niagara like Brown, Sherk, Overholt, Huffman, Wintemute, Winger and, yes, even Harris, are commonly recognized Loyalist monikers in our part of the province.

The Loyalists were instrumental in building Niagara and in building Ontario's cultural, legal and constitutional institutions. I commend the member for Hastings-Peterborough for his efforts in promoting the province's history and the heritage of its people.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Danford, you have two more minutes.

Mr Danford: First of all, I want to thank my colleagues for their support this morning that's been shown in this House, certainly the members for Durham Centre, Niagara South, York East and also the members for Algoma-Manitoulin, Sault Ste Marie and Algoma. Their comments were well received and we appreciate that sort of support that recognizes the importance of this bill to the history of the province of Ontario.

As citizens, we are all constantly striving to improve our future, but we always need to remember our roots and our past because truly the lessons of the past are an asset for the decisions of the future, and we always have to keep that in mind.

The Loyalist movement and those people who migrated to this part of Canada set the example for us. Their hard work, their pride, their dedication and the strong principles they brought with them, through very difficult times which many of the members here have already related to and mentioned, set the basis for the province we have here today. Certainly, all the generations that followed, and I think that includes everyone present in this House today and whoever happens to be watching, have been the benefactors of those things that were brought here and how we were established.

The member for Algoma-Manitoulin in one of his remarks recognized the time that has passed, over 200 years, and the fact that we have not recognized this important occasion, and I agree. I thank the member for bringing that point forth and I think it is time.

The Deputy Speaker: Because the standing orders require that votes on private members' public business not be taken before 12 noon, I will suspend the proceedings until noon, pursuant to standing order 95(e), at which time I will put the questions on the ballot items debated this morning.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Mr Speaker, may I request unanimous consent that we proceed with the vote now?

The Deputy Speaker: This is one of the few occasions where I cannot accept unanimous consent because not all the members are here, and for me to call them I would have to ring the bell and have unanimous consent. The House will recess for four minutes.

The House recessed from 1156 to 1200.

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll deal first with ballot item 91. Mr Ford has moved private member's notice of motion number 65. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Take your seats.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE JOUR DES LOYALISTES DE L'EMPIRE-UNI

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 92.

Mr Danford has moved second reading of Bill 150,

An Act proclaiming United Empire Loyalists' Day. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): Could I make a request, Mr Speaker? I would like this referred to the Legislative Assembly committee if the House chooses.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour? Carried.

Call in the members; there will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1206.

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Ford has moved private member's notice of motion number 65. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Michael A.

Churley, Marilyn

Danford, Harry

Flaherty, Jim

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jordan, W. Leo

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Laughren, Floyd

Leadston, Gary L.

Martin, Tony

Maves, Bart

Miclash, Frank

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 37; the nays are zero.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Before we adjourn, I would like to congratulate the ladies and gentlemen who took the time to dress in those beautiful costumes and spend the time here with us this morning. Thank you very much.

All matters related to private members' business having been debated, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On behalf of Mr McGuinty and my colleagues in our caucus, I rise today to congratulate Canadians of Ukrainian descent on celebrating their independence day.

The courageous determination of Ukrainians to regain their freedom is a source of inspiration to all mankind. Having tasted liberty in 1918, neither the weapons of starvation nor prison walls could extinguish the torch of freedom and hope that has been resolutely passed on from one heroic generation to another.

I'm convinced the rich heritage and proud tradition of Ukrainians will endure forever. Those Ukrainians who have come to Canada in search of freedom and opportunity since 1891 have made important contributions to the development of our province and country and to the enrichment of our culture. With the ethic of hard work and study, they have taken their rightful role as leaders in the professions, business, education, sport and government. We admire the unbreakable spirit of optimism and hope of our Ukrainian friends.

In spite of past tragic events, they've become symbols to all freedom-loving peoples as torch bearers of democracy, torch bearers of people who justly want only to determine their own future and structure their own destiny.

To President Kuchma and Consul General in Toronto, and indeed to all Canadians of Ukrainian descent, we want to congratulate them on their independence day.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Over the last number of days, members have been expressing on behalf of their constituents, as I did yesterday, their consternation over the significant increase in the price of gasoline over the last number of days.

Yesterday my colleague from Sault Ste Marie suggested that the provincial government press upon the federal government their responsibility to investigate these increases in gasoline prices and to take measures against them. I pointed out that this government had reimposed the vehicle registration fee for northern Ontario drivers at a time when gasoline prices are much higher than when the previous government removed that fee as a way of trying to compensate for the additional cost in northern Ontario.

I note that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is today making a statement in which he says he is calling upon the federal minister to take action. He says, "To date, the federal government continues to demonstrate a lack of interest in taking action that will protect Ontario and Canadian consumers against undesirable market practices being conducted by petroleum companies related to gasoline pricing." I would say that as long as this government maintains the vehicle registration fee in northern Ontario, they are demonstrating the same lack of interest for consumers in northern Ontario.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I was proud to attend the launch yesterday of an education and fund-raising campaign cosponsored by the Ontario Brain Injury Association, Bauer Canada and minor hockey.

The event was initiated at the urging of Carl Lindros, father to Eric and Brett Lindros, both stars of the National Hockey League. As many in the House know, young Brett was forced to announce his retirement from the National Hockey League in May 1996 at the young age of 20 because he had suffered a number of concussions and did not allow his brain time to recover between injuries.

Bauer Canada commissioned artist John Newby to produce a limited-edition print to be used as a fund-raiser for OBIA and minor hockey; 888 signed prints are available for purchase by minor hockey associations. The funds raised will allow the Ontario Brain Injury Association to educate minor hockey league coaches and parents about the dangers of receiving a concussion and the importance of allowing the brain to recover before returning to play. The education program will also focus on the necessity of wearing properly fitted equipment. For those interested in purchasing a print, please contact Larry Nelles at 905-641-8877.

Our government has committed to providing those with brain injuries services close to home here in Ontario. Brain injury is the leading cause of death for Canadian males under 40 and the fourth leading cause of death young females. As Dr Barry Willer, the executive director for OBIA, stated yesterday, the only cure is prevention.

I would like to congratulate all those involved in this very important cause.

JEUX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE / WORLD FRANCOPHONE GAMES

M. Patten (Ottawa-Centre): J'aimerais informer les membres de l'Assemblée que Ottawa-Hull a été choisie pour être hôte de la communauté francophone du monde et le site des Jeux de la francophonie de l'an 2001.

Avec le solide soutien du gouvernement fédéral et des gouvernements municipaux de la région et le travail dévoué des organisateurs et bénévoles de la région, Ottawa-Hull a été capable de remporter cette compétition contre Beyrouth, qui était fort bien organisée et qui avait l'appui de la France. Cet événement international d'importance comporte des compétitions athlétiques, et culturelles aussi.

These World Francophone Games are expected to attract 3,500 athletes and artisans to the region. Ottawa-Hull will be centre stage to the world during this time. The World Francophone Games will take advantage of the region's many venues, such as the Terry Fox Sports Facility, Lansdowne Park, the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the National Gallery, with the games likely to be headquartered at the University of Ottawa.

Increased tourism and activities related to organizing and marketing the games will generate between $20 million and $30 million for the local economy. More important than the financial reward is the cooperation between Ottawa and Hull, which worked together to secure these games. It's a fine example of Canadian unity at work.

I'm confident that Ottawa-Hull will host an event that will be the envy of the world, and I want to congratulate all my fellow people in the region who have made this possible.

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Today I'm going to tell the House about my correspondence with Kim Charlebois, who is the coordinator of the sexual assault centre for Quinte and district.

The House might like to know that this centre is the only sexual assault centre in the province of Ontario not funded by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. They have been trying to get funding for some time. Under our government they were given a grant of, I think, approximately $50,000 a year for project money. Even that has now been cancelled by the present government, so they're not getting one dime either for annualized funding or for project funding -- nothing.

I want to point out to the government that this is unfair. For a government that says it cares about violence-against-women issues, this is another indication that it doesn't.

I want to point out to you what this centre does. They operate a 24-hour sexual assault crisis line that receives no funding; it is operated completely by trained volunteers. They receive approximately 1,600 calls per year on the line. They accompany police to court. They work with male and female survivors, and there's been about a 500% increase in calls from men over the past two years. So this is a very important sexual assault centre. I urge the Solicitor General to get on with it and fund this centre.

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Not only do Ukrainian Canadians celebrate a free Ukraine, but as part of that celebration on Saturday, August 23, I was privileged to participate in the first annual Ukrainian festival and parade that was held in my riding of High Park-Swansea.

The parade was sponsored by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and marked the sixth anniversary of Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union after 60 years of Communist rule. The parade, which started at High Park, wound along Bloor Street until it reached Jane Street. Over 6,000 people viewed the parade at various points along its route.

The parade was led by the Governor General's Horse Guards, and some of the participants included the Baturyn Marching Band, the Ukrainian Youth Association, Toronto City War Vets, the Bloor West Village BIA, Future Bakery, the Ukrainian Canadian School Band, Coffee Time, Ukrainian Sports Club, (Contact) Kontakt, the Ukrainian TV program, as well as Plast Youth Camp and the Derma Dance Co, and of course yours truly.

At the conclusion of the parade, a festival was held at the corner of Bloor and Jane streets. There were Ukrainian crafts along with bands, dancers and singers who were on hand to entertain the crowds that spent the day in Bloor West Village. As well, many of the local merchants were serving many of the fine traditional Ukrainian foods.

The Ukrainian community has a strong tradition in West Toronto, and I must say it was a pleasure to see so many members out and about and welcome them back into our community.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): We have seen the cool reception reserved to Premier Mike Harris and Municipal Affairs Minister Al Leach at the AMO convention. I know that most of the elected officials from my riding are very sceptical about the downloading of services and about the fact that the Harris government insists it will be revenue-neutral, that municipalities will not only be able to reduce taxes but will also be able to offer better services. This is nonsense.

I have prepared a chart with all the municipal responsibilities for Prescott and Russell and I came up with a shortfall of $20 million. Some Tories might say this is typical of opposition, but the united counties of Prescott and Russell did their own study, and they also came up with a shortfall of more than $20 million.

It is false to say these services will be downloaded on to municipalities without reduction of service quality and without tax increases. It is more and more obvious that the Harris government wants to put the blame on municipal politicians for these service reductions and tax increases, but as we have seen this week at the AMO convention, municipal leaders are well aware of that strategy and they will not let this happen without a fight.

BLOOD SYSTEM

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Over 12,000 Canadians have been infected with hepatitis C through the blood system, and despite ongoing efforts to persuade ministers of health at the federal and provincial levels of the need for compensation, no action has yet been taken.

A Tory letter to haemophilia Ontario, dated February 25, 1997, stated:

"Health ministers across Canada decided...that they would not extend a compensation package for those individuals who contracted the hepatitis C virus from tainted blood. The reason was that there was a major difficulty in compensating all individuals who were infected by a medical mishap."

As the testimony at the Krever commission clearly showed, tainted blood resulted not from a mishap but from decisions made by various agencies, corporations and levels of government over a number of years not to use available tests to screen out infected blood.

The Minister of Health, in opposition, urged our government to compensate haemophiliacs who were infected by tainted blood. Today I ask the minister to have the integrity and courage with respect to hepatitis C infected haemophiliacs, first, to insist that the compensation issue be at the table at the next ministers' meeting; second, to strongly advocate for compensation; and third, to commit to using provincial dollars to compensate victims of tainted blood if no federal-provincial agreement is reached. These people are dying. The time to act is now.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): We all have a responsibility to seek the end of the problem of violence against women, which seriously affects the lives of thousands of women and children, including many in my riding of Chatham-Kent.

Violence against women is a crime which subjects its victims to numerous abuses, both mental and physical. Suffering injury and disrupted lives, these victims must live with the intimidation, painful images and deep scars of the abuse they have experienced. Violence against women is a very real part of our communities, and whether we recognize it or not, it touches all our lives.

In response to this persistent problem, the minister responsible for women's issues, the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, recently announced a strategic framework for the prevention of violence against women.

This program addresses such violence as it permeates our society in all its forms, in the home, in the workplace, in institutional settings and in the broader community. The program strategies include providing protective havens for abused women and focusing on the support of victims, while at the same time taking aggressive action against perpetrators through improvements to the justice system.

I am optimistic and highly supportive of this new program and the protection, support and hope it provides for victimized women and their families.

Violence against women is a crime which can be prevented through government support, tough laws, education and, most importantly, community care.

COMMITTEE REPORT

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that yesterday the Clerk received the 42nd report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LANSING CO-OPERATIVE NURSERY SCHOOL ACT, 1997

Mr Turnbull moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr88,

An act respecting Lansing Co-operative Nursery School.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): This government is committed to protecting the environment and ensuring that the people of Ontario have a safe drinking water supply.

As my colleagues are aware, the Who Does What exercise clarified the responsibilities of provincial and municipal levels of government in the delivery of water and sewage services.

Municipalities have always been responsible for providing water and sewage treatment services to their communities, and three quarters of the operations providing these services already own their own facilities in their own names. In recognition of this, the government will be transferring the title, which those municipalities are beneficial owners of anyway, of the remaining one quarter sewage plants to these municipalities.

The province recognizes that we have the very important responsibility of setting proper standards and ensuring that they are met. We also recognize that there will be special cases where municipalities will need help.

That is why today I'm pleased to share with the House the details of the provincial water protection fund announced by my colleague the finance minister in the May 6 budget. We are making $200 million available over three years to help municipalities in the event of specific health and environmental problems. Funds will be available to those communities that require financial assistance to solve specific environmental and public health problems. With this new fund, we are making sure that cost-effective solutions to problems are found and that we make the best possible use of existing facilities and joint servicing arrangements.

We have very high water and sewage standards in this province. Virtually all of Ontario's municipalities currently meet the province's drinking water standards. Our infrastructure is among the best in the world. The funding I have announced today will help ensure that water and sewage treatment facilities in Ontario maintain those high standards.

The provincial water protection fund is further evidence that this government is committed to protecting the environment and ensuring that all Ontarians are able to drink safe, clean water.

GASOLINE PRICES

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Today I am tabling a resolution in the House in connection with gasoline pricing practices by large petroleum companies. I hope to receive all-party support in order that I may be able to present a unanimous expression of the Ontario Legislature at the provincial consumer ministers' meeting in Regina on September 10 and 11.

I've previously expressed my concern, and anger, quite frankly, as have most Ontarians, as have my colleagues across the House, as have ordinary Ontarians, people like my uncle and aunt, John and Kathy Takahashi, who happen to be in the gallery today -- I slipped that one in. Ontarians are angry at the outrageous price increases that the big petroleum companies are foisting today upon the consumers of Ontario.

The issue of ensuring fair competition in the gasoline marketplace is an issue that crosses provincial boundaries and is the responsibility of the federal government under the Competition Act. However, to date, and as recently as yesterday, the federal government continues to show a demonstrated lack of interest in taking action that will protect Ontarians and in fact all Canadians against the undesirable market practices being conducted by the petroleum companies relating to gasoline pricing.

Notwithstanding the reluctance of the federal government to assume its rightful responsibility for the issue, I have already written to Ontario's gas refiners demanding that steps be taken to resolve this issue.

I've also met with the Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers Association and other independent gasoline retailers, along with the member for Halton North, to discuss issues such as retail margins. As well, I've written to the Honourable John Manley, the federal minister responsible, to express my concern and to call upon Ottawa to exercise the powers under the Competition Act to eliminate anti-competitive practices in the retail gasoline marketplace across this nation.

Today I'm calling on Mr Manley and the federal government to immediately address the pricing increases and practices within the gasoline industry and to appoint a special investigator to review this situation and to make recommendations to ensure that Canadian consumers benefit from competitive gasoline pricing.

I am seeking expressions of support from both opposition parties today and all members of the House for the resolution. This will enable me to have the full backing of the Ontario Legislature in presenting Ontario's position to the federal-provincial ministers' meeting in Regina. I look forward to the support of the House for this action.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): For a brief moment earlier today, before I heard the statement, I would have thought that this government and this minister finally had the courage and the commitment to call an inquiry into the Hamilton Plastimet fire. But what we have seen is simply another public relations announcement by a desperate minister, by a minister who is on the ropes, by a minister who has abandoned all commitment to the environment. Instead of receiving an announcement that the people of Hamilton have been waiting for, what we have is a recycled announcement of a May 6 budget announcement made by the finance minister.

What I find most disturbing about this is the first line: "This government is committed to protecting the environment." This is the same government that has cut one third of the funding out of the Ministry of Environment. This is the same government that has cut 40% of the budget out of the Ministry of Environment. This is the same government that has allowed prosecutions and charges to drop by 50% in the last two years because they have turned a blind eye to polluters across Ontario.

What we see today is a lack of recognition that what this government has done, with the bill that the minister refers to today, is open the door for the privatization of water and sewer services. When this government turned over the remaining 25% of the services to the municipalities, both opposition parties and every single group that came in front of the committee said to the government, "Put a clause in your legislation that stops municipalities from privatizing water and sewers."

What did this government do? It ignored it. It listened to its corporate friends. They can't wait till they get their greedy paws on water and sewer services and then have the ability to set water rates and hold consumers hostage. This is what it's all about.

This announcement does absolutely nothing to protect consumers from giving the private sector the authority to set water and sewer rates. Water and sewer rates do not belong in the hands of the private sector; they belong in the hands of government. The bill that you have set has opened that door. The bill that you put through the Legislature simply turns it over; any municipality across Ontario today can turn over, not the operation -- the operation is one part of the agenda. The operation of the services in some municipalities makes sense. It is the ability to set water rates.

Today there isn't one municipality in Ontario that has turned that over. With this bill and with the downloading you have opened the door. You're going to see the British experience repeated here in Ontario as soon as you allow the private sector to control water and sewer rates. You have done nothing to protect that, and consumers are not going to forget what you have done to them.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): We see the Harris government springing into action today on gas prices. It was a year ago May when we raised it, and of course the Minister of Economic Development said: "No, no, don't worry. Prices are about the same here as they are in France and Switzerland. What are you all worried about? Furthermore, we must let the market have its way." Mr Tsubouchi, your problem's not with the opposition; it's persuading your cabinet colleagues that there's a problem. We care about the price here in Ontario, not France or Switzerland, where he may travel, but here in Ontario.

We see some tough action by the government. They're going to pass a resolution and they're going to write a letter. You want action? You get Mike Harris right in behind it. He'll write letters and pass resolutions.

I would say to the government, first talk to the minister, Mr Saunderson. Tell him it is a problem. Tell him that the marketplace isn't working. That's your first problem. Second, do something. We can pass, here in this Legislature, legislation around what's called predatory pricing. We asked you to do that a year ago, we asked you to do that last week, and we're asking you to do that again. What's happening is that the large oil companies are putting the small independent operators out of business, and we can do something about that. But no, we're going to send a resolution down to Ottawa, pass the buck.

I would say to the minister and to Mike Harris, let's get a little backbone. Spend some time writing some legislation here that we can deal with, bring it before the Legislature and let us deal with it. Second, call Mr Saunderson in and tell him he's offside, he's wrong.

The government has now changed its tack because they realize the public are sick and tired of the lack of action by this government.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a response to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I also thought the minister might be announcing today that he's calling for an independent investigation into the fire in Hamilton. But no. What did we see last night on TV but Mr Hardy Wong, the regional director, trying to explain what happened in Hamilton. Where's the minister? He's afraid to speak out on this issue. He's removed himself, ducking the issue completely.

Today what do we hear? We've got the minister up playing the old shell game. He's reannouncing an announcement that was made a little while ago. It must be because AMO is in town and they're upset about the fact that they have to pay for all this somehow. This was announced a while ago. There's nothing new here today. What's shameful about it is that the minister has already cut millions and millions of dollars out of various programs and today is reannouncing a little bit, a small portion of that, back into the system.

They cut the municipal assistance program, the CURB program; that's the agricultural runoff program. Under OCWA they cut the grants and cut all the water conservation programs. Staff and resources have been cut to the bone. What's worst of all is that this minister has opened the door to have our precious resource, water in this province, privatized.

The minister should be ashamed of himself today. He's got nothing new to say. We were looking forward to some kind of announcement on either Hydro or the Hamilton fire, the two really big issues out there, and not a word about it. What does he do instead but stand up and reannounce old news, something we already knew.

Minister, what we want to hear from you today is an announcement about the Hamilton fire. We want to see you take responsibility. We want you to look into whether the cuts in staff and resources, as I firmly believe, had an impact and an effect on what happened at that fire. We want an investigation into what happened at that Hamilton fire. Your own studies show -- they even exceeded Greenpeace studies on the site. It's a site I was able to walk into because it wasn't constrained. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. We want to see the minister finally stand up and do his job and take responsibility for the health of the people of this province.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): We on this side are always thankful for any little recognition by this government that their friends and supporters in the private sector are damaging the ability of consumers to buy and to make a living. We will of course be supporting this resolution, given that yesterday we asked the government to do that in response to a statement made by our colleague John Solomon in Ottawa.

But we find it all passing strange. It rings hollow and feels somewhat hypocritical that in dealing with the petroleum industry, the giant that is making record profits these days, this government would choose to use a fly-swatter, while in dealing with the workers of the province