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

October 20, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L046A - Tue 20 Oct 1998 / Mar 20 Oct 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TUITION FEES

PINOCHET ARREST

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

HIGHWAY SIGNS

PALLIATIVE CARE

SCHOOL TEACHERS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

JOB CREATION

VISITORS

JOANNE MALAR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FORESTIERS PROFESSIONNELS

PERSONS DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PAY EQUITY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ABORTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

ROAD SAFETY

CURRICULUM

PROPERTY TAXATION

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

PROPERTY TAXATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

WATER QUALITY

ELECTORAL REFORM

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

PROSTATE CANCER

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

PERSONAL WATERCRAFT

DENTAL CARE

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TUITION FEES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise in the House today on behalf of Ontario's post-secondary students, who have been savaged by the Mike Harris government. Yesterday I visited the University of Western Ontario and met with the medical students there who feel that Ontario's next generation can no longer access medical programs because of the 106% tuition increase this Minister of Education has imposed on them through deregulation of fees. They're concerned about the brain drain Ontario will suffer when we see our new doctors go to the United States to pay their debts.

I also had the opportunity to pick up over 1,500 of these student-debt postcards from Western alone. In just over two weeks, 1,500 students at Western joined our campaign to highlight Mike Harris's neglect of students and student debt.

I demand an answer on behalf of Ontario's students from this Minister of Education.

What does he say to Kate, a social work student who is carrying $40,000 of debt already and will add another $12,000 this year? How about Mitchell? Mitchell is a kinesiology student who is $30,000 in debt. What incentive does he have to work in Ontario? Or John - John's doctoral studies have cost him $45,000, put him $45,000 in debt. Dennis, an engineering student, has almost $50,000 of debt waiting for him when he graduates this year.

Thousands of these cards are coming in from across Ontario. I demand, on behalf of these students, that this government provide some support and relief to the youth of this province.

PINOCHET ARREST

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to welcome the initiative of the Spanish government and the response of the authorities in the United Kingdom in trying to bring the infamous former dictator Augusto Pinochet to justice.

Peculiarities of Chilean law and the niceties of international law must not prevent Pinochet being held accountable for his crimes during his 17-year reign of terror in Chile. Law must not be used to make the world safe for violent dictators who murder and disappear opponents. Law must protect individual and collective democratic rights and freedoms. Law must make the world safe for citizens who dissent, for mothers whose daughters and sons should not be disappeared, for children who should not be orphaned by state terror.

Pinochet must be brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. Viva España, viva democracy, viva Chile.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise on behalf of myself and the MPP for Leeds-Grenville, Bob Runciman, to bring attention to the village of Merrickville, located along the historic Rideau Canal in the riding of Leeds-Grenville.

On September 26, at a national awards ceremony held in Winnipeg, the village of Merrickville was declared the most beautiful village of 1,000 people or less in the 1998 Communities in Bloom competition, a program that emphasizes the improvement of quality of life through green spaces and environmental awareness.

This tiny historic village is located on the banks of the Rideau River and still boasts a multiple set of locks from the early 1800s.

Most of the village consists of carefully preserved 19th century buildings - buildings which are highlighted by the colourful flowers planted with pride by local gardeners. The natural river environment is further enhanced by the local bird sanctuary.

Let us not forget the massive ice storm of 1998. The people of this little village represented the true spirit of the Communities in Bloom committee with their positive response to nature's adversity. The entire community worked together repairing and restoring their home, taking inventory of the critical damage and implementing immediate remedies. In fact, the efforts of Merrickville's citizens to clean up was incredible.

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister Of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Yesterday the minister stood in the house and claimed to be launching a "very special salute" to the men and women who operate and work in small businesses in Ontario. For many small and seasonal business owners, the minister's salute came as they were receiving the news from his government that highway sign user fees are increasing by some 300%. I must assure the minister that that type of salute they can do without.

The minister claims to be a friend of small business; however, the facts tell a different story. Like most members, I am being inundated with calls from small business and tourist operators who are furious with him and his government. They are furious because they are fed up with the minister's worthless salutes. Small business owners are no longer willing to sit back while the government gives them a so-called salute.

Let me read for the minister from a letter I recently received from a tourist operator, one who voted for your government's so-called revolution. He says:

"I voted for the Conservative government in the last election and have spent a fair amount of time defending their actions. During the past few years, I kept telling myself that the hard line was good for everyone. I can no longer support those views."

This operator, like so many others, is telling me that you have forgotten about them and refuse to acknowledge the contribution that small business makes to Ontario's economy. They ask how any small business owner can take the salutes seriously.

For those who work in the business and tourism sector, it is becoming very clear -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The Minister of Long-Term Care owes a public apology to the chair, board and staff of the Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association. Last week the board announced it would have to close its doors if this government doesn't provide more base funding. In response, in a radio interview, the minister made a series of allegations about the organization which were completely incorrect.

He stated that the association only began to talk to his ministry about their funding problems after the decision was made to close the doors. In fact the organization first warned the ministry of the need for more base funding in 1996. On a weekly basis from January to May of this year, the executive director has talked to ministry staff about the funding crisis.

The minister said the board has refused to meet with ministry staff to discuss the details of the operational review which might lead to more funding. In fact it took the ministry from the end of January to the end of September to complete a 22-page review of the organization. The board asked for two to three weeks to review it and respond to ministry staff. They have never refused to meet.

The minister complained that the review has not been shared with the board, staff or public. In fact the organization has a contractual agreement with the ministry not to disclose the details of the review until both parties agree to the contents.

The minister alleged the Sudbury program was being funded in accordance with other northern palliative care programs. In fact, if the Sudbury program is compared to programs with a similar client and volunteer base in southern Ontario, its budget would be significantly increased.

Other allegations were made but the point is this: If the minister doesn't want to increase funding, he should stand up and say so. To use innuendo and allegation as an excuse not to do the right thing is unacceptable.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in the Legislature to make you aware of comments reported in the news media by Canadian Press on October 10 in an

article reported in the Toronto Sun. The item which has caused me great consternation was a fairly small item entitled "Sexual Crimes Costing Teachers." In the

article the Ontario College of Teachers reported that in disciplinary incidents 75% were sex-related misconduct cases.

What provoked me was not so much the report but rather the comments made by a supposedly professional teacher who is also the vice-president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Mr Jim McQueen.

The comments made to Jeff Harder of the Toronto Sun were a direct quote, "Probably the college will expand its activities beyond, you know, kiddie diddlers and those kinds of things," said federation vice-president Jim McQueen.

I find this type of remark unprofessional, unacceptable, unconscionable, demeaning and derogatory towards the profession of teaching and the very college that was recently established to promote and protect this profession.

I wish to publicly record not only my disgust at this remark but the disgust of many members of this House who also revile such comments by a supposed professional.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Ted Arnott, the Conservative MPP for Wellington, has written an open letter to the Minister of Education on the important issue of school closures.

I can appreciate the frustration of a Tory MPP who has to resort to writing to letters to the editor in order to get his own government to listen, and I want to help him get his voice heard.

I think Mr Arnott would like to lay the blame for school closures on the local school board, much as the Minister of Education tries to do, but Mr Arnott has some very real problems with the deadline his government has put in place for decision-making. He wants the minister to extend the deadline forcing school closure plans to be put in place, and so it should be.

But if Mr Arnott wants to avoid school closures in his communities, he's going to have to push his government on another front. His government is refusing to fund any so-called extra space and they are going to force schools to close as a result of that. Mr Arnott is pleased that his board has some overall money, but if he has talked to his board, he will recognize that that money is all committed to the essential areas that the minister has decreed will be funded. School space is not one of those areas.

Mr Arnott makes a compelling case for the value of schools in rural communities. I believe there should be a school in the community, whether it is rural or urban. That's an issue of basic access to education. Mr Arnott's government is not yet prepared to provide the dollars to keep schools in the community, and they should. Just extending the deadline isn't going to be good enough.

JOB CREATION

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): The voters of Nickel Belt made it clear to me during my election campaign that their number one concern is jobs. It's no wonder. The people of Ontario elected the Harris government because it promised to create 725,000 jobs. The people of Nickel Belt want to know where they are.

Your government is working hard to take rights away from workers and to make an income tax scheme for the wealthy. The government claimed the combination of tax scheme and reducing workers' rights would create that employment. Well, it just hasn't worked and now your government is completely out of ideas.

The Conservative government has just announced a jobs tour, going around the province, trying to cover up the Harris government's failure to keep the broken jobs promise.

So is this propaganda show coming to Sudbury? Of course not. In Nickel Belt and Sudbury the unemployment problem has been getting worse since the Conservatives were elected. The unemployment rate has jumped two points since last year and now unemployment is over 11% in the Sudbury area. It's even worse for young workers. Sudbury has lost 2,000 jobs for youths since 1997.

The Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, headed by long-time Conservative staff member David Lindsay is a $10-million pre-election campaign funded out of the pockets of Ontario's taxpayers -

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

VISITORS

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): First of all, on behalf of the Honourable David Tsubouchi, I'd like to acknowledge the presence in the visitors' gallery today of the Older Adults in Action seniors' group from Markham.

JOANNE MALAR

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to take this opportunity today to congratulate a very special young woman, a resident from my community of Hamilton Mountain.

Several weeks ago, Joanne Malar was named Ontario female athlete of the year. Joanne received this honour for her extraordinary list of accomplishments in the sport of swimming during this past year. As a participant in the World Cup circuit, Joanne attended World Cup V in Glasgow, Scotland, World Cup VI in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, World Cup VII in Imperia, Italy, and World Cup VIII in Paris, France. Joanne came away from these competitions with a total of five silver and three bronze medals.

At the world short course championships in Gothenburg, Sweden, Joanne won a bronze medal and at the Pan Pacific championships in Fukuoka, Japan, she earned a silver and three bronze medals. Most recently, Joanne continued the exhibition of her athletic excellence at the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where she won one gold, two silver and two bronze medals.

This outstanding young athlete also finds the time to continue her full-time studies at the University of Calgary where she is majoring in kinesiology.

On behalf of the citizens of Hamilton Mountain, I congratulate Joanne Malar for her extraordinary accomplishments this past year. I, along with all my constituents, join her family, friends and neighbours, high atop Hamilton Mountain, in rooting for her as she attempts to achieve her next goal, that of qualifying for the 2000 summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia. We will all be chanting, "Go, Joanne, go."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FORESTIERS PROFESSIONNELS

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 71,

An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry / Projet de loi 71, Loi concernant la réglementation de l'exercice de la profession de forestier.

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

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): This bill continues the Ontario Professional Foresters Association as the professional body that regulates and governs the profession of professional forestry in Ontario.

PERSONS DAY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, Sunday was Persons Day, and I'm asking for unanimous consent for all-party statements today to celebrate that very important day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there unanimous consent for all-party statements for Persons Day? Agreed.

Ms Churley: On Friday of last week, I attended the LEAF annual fundraising breakfast to celebrate Persons Day in this province. Once again it was a very enlightening and a very empowering event for many, many hundreds of women who come out every year to celebrate this very important day in our lives.

It's somewhat hard to believe that there was a day when women were considered to be non-persons; in other words, we had no legal rights. Somebody asked me just very recently what Persons Day was, and I said, "Well, if it weren't for Persons Day, if it weren't for that legal right granted to women, I wouldn't be here today."

Women did not have the right to vote, and in fact had very few rights. So this was a very important judgment that affected the lives of women across our country, and I am very happy today to stand and ask all of the members in the House to celebrate this day with us. We celebrated with LEAF on Friday, and we remembered the legal cases brought forward by LEAF, which were very important to the rights of women in this province, and indeed across the country.

One of the cases, for instance, that LEAF has been working on recently and that we will hear the results of soon was a sexual assault case in Alberta, I believe, where a young women who three times said no to sexual advances was sexually assaulted. The judge - this was a case that was appealed - said, and I can't quite remember the quote, that she "didn't come exactly dressed in crinolines and a bonnet."

This was a hot summer day where a young woman went for an interview, I believe at some kind of fairgrounds, and was asked to be interviewed in a trailer. This was a very young woman, 17 years old. The young woman, who went into the trailer, was sexually assaulted by this man after she made it very clear that she didn't want those sexual advances. The judge ruled that she in fact, because of the way she was dressed, and I believe because she didn't actively fight back - and she says that's because she saw a TV show explaining to women that if they feel they're in danger they should try to stay calm.

This case has been appealed, and LEAF represented this young woman. We're very much looking forward to a reversal in this decision, because we are seeing more and more the erosion of women's rights. Yesterday my colleague Marion Boyd, our health critic, stood up and talked about the erosion of abortion services. Safe, legal abortions in this province are being eroded by this government. We have to continue to be alert and continue to fight for the rights of women at all times.

I'm very happy today to say that LEAF is there fighting for the rights of women. It's important for all of us to be vigilant to make sure that the hard-earned rights women have fought for over the years are not eroded further.

I thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to hearing from the other parties today.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, I understand the minister responsible for women's issues is going to be arriving. The government House leader has asked if I would take her turn in the rotation while we await her arrival, and I am pleased to do that.

I am pleased that we are going to have an opportunity to recognize, although somewhat belatedly, the fact that Sunday was Persons Day. As the member for the third party just indicated, Persons Day was recognized at the LEAF breakfast, the breakfast that was held in communities across this province on Friday morning.

LEAF, for those who are not aware, is the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. It is the members of LEAF and the supporters of LEAF who have so strongly and actively argued for the full personhood of women from the time of that original decision. LEAF was not founded then, but it was people with the belief that we have to establish the full personhood of women in the courts in order to ensure that women are enabled to participate fully in every aspect of our society, because surely that's what personhood means.

One of the statements that was made at the LEAF breakfast here in Toronto on Friday was that although there was recognition on that date of women becoming persons in a legal sense, there were still many women who were not given that recognition, particularly women who are part of an ethnic minority.

The other reality that was addressed at the LEAF breakfast was that although there has been progress for women in achieving greater participation in all aspects of our society since women legally became persons, there have also been giant steps, sadly, backwards. There have certainly been steps backwards very recently in the justice system. The member for Riverdale has referred to one that is a current issue of concern for LEAF in the courts.

It is almost inconceivable, for those of us who have celebrated some of the progress women have made before the courts, to believe that there could be a justice who had determined that no did not mean no because the young woman who was involved in the incident had not presented herself, to quote the judge, "in crinolines and petticoats." LEAF is taking that case forward in support of the appeal.

LEAF also recognized a number of other areas and I think it is appropriate, as we talk about women achieving full personhood, to recognize those areas in which there have been backward steps here in Ontario.

I won't dwell on them at length, but I think they need to be recorded on this day of recognition: the fact that employment equity is no longer a part of the law of Ontario under the current government and that that represents a gigantic step backwards for women who are looking for support to become equal participants in the workforce; the fact that this government removed a significant aspect of the law governing pay equity.

They have now been found to be in opposition to the Constitution of the land and have had to reverse that position, but it has still set back the implementation of pay equity significantly, and the payment of funds to agencies that have to implement their pay equity plans are still pending.

Most particularly, we go back to the fact that if they're going to achieve true personhood and true participation in aspects of our society, they have to have some degree of economic strength and independence.

We know what has happened to women who are in low-income families and sole-support families on social assistance in recent years. We've seen the cutbacks to women who head up families on social assistance. We've seen the cutbacks of 23% in social assistance. We've seen what happens when women try to get out of abusive situations and establish some independence. We've seen the cutbacks of the counselling support for women who are trying to move from an emergency shelter into second-stage housing and become economically independent.

We've seen the difficulty of women in getting legal aid certificates. Last night in this House there was a debate continued on restructuring the legal aid plan, legislation which does nothing but change the governance model, with absolutely no attempt to address the issue of funding and whether there will be any ability for women who are seeking to get legal support in order to get custody orders, so they will have the economic support they need to leave abusive situations, whether they will have any chance of getting that legal support.

We know what's happened to the family support plan. Women who have made the break and are attempting to establish independent lives are not able to get the support which courts have already awarded to them.

We do want to celebrate, to recognize the day on which women became persons, but it becomes somewhat meaningless if this many years later we are unable to continue to take steps forward in ensuring that women are full participants in all aspects of society. I trust that if the minister responsible for women's issues in the government of Ontario rises to recognize women's day, she will give us some personal assurance of the areas in which women will take steps forward rather than backwards in this next year.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Persons Day in Canada began 66 years ago, on October 18, 1929. That is when women were declared to be persons in the eyes of the law of this country. Prior to that time, only men were considered persons, entitled to societal rights and privileges.

This watershed in women's history was the result of the determination and persistence of Judge Emily Murphy of Alberta and four other committed Canadian women: Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung and Irene Parlby. Collectively known as the Famous Five, these champions of women's rights took their crusade all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. On behalf of all the women of Ontario, and Ontarians in general, I would like to acknowledge Judge Murphy and her colleagues for their achievement on behalf of all of us who have followed them.

Since the declaration of their personhood, Canadian women have increased their presence in virtually all spheres of endeavour. Taking a page from Judge Murphy's book of creativity and determination, more women than ever before have become successful business people in this country by creating 1.7 million jobs across this country. Women are the greatest contributors to job creation in Canada. They are the entrepreneurs of our country.

Over the past decade, all governments of all partisan stripes, not only here in Ontario but across Canada, have improved the opportunities for women in education, not only choosing the kinds of courses and subjects they need to get ahead, but this year, in the registration in our universities in this province, they are 53% of what we would refer to as the first-year class. They are more than 50% in our educational classes, our medical classes, our law classes. We have so much to be thankful for.

They are involved in private industry and the operation of their own businesses, but they have not achieved their goal when it comes to representation on boards across this country. We have so much to do to assist women to become those board members where they will be equal decision-makers in areas where decisions are made about investment in our country, about the justice system in our country, about the police services in our country, about education, about health care. More women than ever are pursuing these opportunities.

This is a challenging time for governments across our country. The ministers responsible for women's issues have put at the top of their agenda a framework to stop violence. We in Ontario have our framework, and that framework will be used by ministers across this country as the kind of, I would say, general policy that other provinces will be able to adopt. We will be hoping to make that announcement sometime early in the next year.

I will also say on that note that this is an opportunity for we in Ontario to give credit to our Solicitor General, who has taken the time to expand our victim/witness assistance program so that women will have women volunteers in every community that has a program like this, which has doubled in size in just the last three years and will take on different roles and responsibilities. In fact, I will be talking with the federal justice minister for the country, Anne McLellan, at a police college very shortly. We will be talking about the gains that women will be making in policing and in the justice system across this country.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to talk about women's health. Very shortly we will, I will say to the members of the opposition parties and our own members - women and health. When we take a look at how far we have come and how far we still have to go, we recognize our deficiencies in this country. We know that there has been more research evolving and dedicated to men's health problems than to women's health problems. As a result, we announced the Women's Health Council, of which the membership will be made public very shortly.

At that time the Minister of Health wanted to know exactly what kind of health research would be appropriate and fair in this province to support areas of women's health - namely, heart disease - that have not been supported in the past by any government.

Women's College Hospital is a perfect example, where we have changed the role of that institution so that women downtown would have a more appropriate rape crisis treatment centre so that we could get the kind of evidence we need in the courts so that we can get the convictions to take care of the perpetrators in our new domestic violence court.

I think it would be inappropriate for me to move forward on the gains we have made in this province in the last few years, especially in the last years, without acknowledging the contributions of many of the women in this House, of all partisan stripes, towards the policies in the past that we have built on, policies that may have been started by the Liberal government. That's the case, for those of you who haven't been here before. I look to my friend from Thunder Bay, who has been here as long as I have; in fact, a couple of years longer. I look at my friends in the New Democratic Party who have worked on programs for women.

This is a day to celebrate. This is the day to celebrate the gains women have made. The great strength of women is that they do work together.

They do have a different style when it comes to making decisions, and I'm very proud to stand in this House today to talk about the gains of former governments and this government when it comes to creating more jobs for women, when it comes to creating more opportunities both in education and in the world of work, when it comes to celebrating the entrepreneurs of our great country, the great contributors to science, especially in the area of health, especially in the area of justice, especially in the area of the Solicitor General and in the area of social services, I say to my colleague.

We should all be proud of the gains we have made and we should all work harder to make things better for women in this country.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to return to this issue which addresses the fact that some six months ago your government committed to addressing some of the problems connected with delays in being admitted to emergency, and hospitals throughout the province turning patients and ambulances away. You have chosen of your own accord to weigh into this, so I thought it only appropriate that I direct the question to you.

That announcement was made over six months ago. You personally today, by means of a photo op, dropped off the first cheque to one of 150 hospital emergency wards. We have no idea when the others are going to be delivered and I have no idea whether you intend to deliver all of those cheques.

My question, Premier, is very simple. You have pointed the finger most inappropriately at bureaucrats. The buck stops with you. Would you stand up now, Premier, and apologize to Ontarians, but especially to patients whose lives have been put at risk as a result of your incompetence in handling this issue?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me first of all respond that I've been well on the record over the weekend talking about the process of government being a barrier to getting these funds out quicker than we would have liked to have done.

I want to correct the record of the member. At no time did I blame the bureaucracy, the bureaucrats or any individual of the very hard-working men and women who are in the process of transforming themselves into one of the elite bureaucracies, indeed if not in Canada, I would say beyond; a bureaucracy that, through the business planning process and the direction our government has given them, has now seen I think 20 or 30 different governments from several countries coming to examine just how it is that this miracle transformation is coming about to get better results within the system. So I welcome -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, it's too late. The real you came out on the weekend. We understand that this now is the product of hours and hours of coaching on how to backtrack on this issue. The real you is out. You pointed the finger at the bureaucrats.

Let's go back to the issue of responsibility here. You put out a press release back on April 20: "Government Takes Action to Improve Hospital Emergency Services."

I'm quoting: "...the government will be acting immediately on recommendations put forward in the final report of the Emergency Services Working Group."

Another quote: "Every region of the province will benefit from our immediate action on the task force's recommendations."

Premier, who is going to assume responsibility for this delay? It took 184 days for this first cheque to be delivered. You delivered it yourself only for purposes of politics, not motivated by any genuine interest in health care. Will you stand up now and apologize for this?

Hon Mr Harris: I think I was very clear. I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for heads to roll. This is all you seem to want to talk about. Instead, what we want to talk about is money to roll.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I was very clear in saying that there is a process in place to make sure that the money is accounted for and is going to where it should go and that it resolves the problem. The announcement was made in response to the report some six months ago. We made it very clear that we felt that in the short term the problem would next arise this fall, and in the meantime we asked the Ministry of Health to work with the various hospitals and those involved in emergency room care to work out a plan that could be both accountable and timely.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, I think we would all agree that there are processes, they are honestly designed to help us do the right thing, but I made a decision they're not to -

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier, come to order, please. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you were the guy who was going to get rid of all the red tape. You were going to make government so much more efficient. If you said something was going to happen, it was going to happen, just like that.

On April 20 you said $225 million was going to flow immediately. Today is October 20. The first of 149 cheques went out the door. When are the others going to go?

Why don't you just stand up here and say you made a mistake? It was a big mistake. You jeopardized the lives of Ontario patients in the doing. Stand up and apologize. Don't point to bureaucrats. Don't point to your Minister of Health. Don't point to the Chair of Management Board. You stand up and you take the blame for this and say you're going to apologize.

Hon Mr Harris: "It's not uncommon for Ottawa's five major hospitals to redirect ambulances to another hospital when they're busy with serious cases such as heart attack victims" - December 24, 1987. The Liberals were in government.

"Dr Garth Dickinson, director of the Ottawa General Hospital emergency department, said there's a risk someone may die because the hospital is turning away critical cases" - Ottawa Citizen, February 15, 1987. The Liberals were in government then.

You just don't get it. Government is about process; it is about dealing with people in the aggregate. We understand that. But sometimes - and in this case, over 15 years - process has gotten in the way of people. We stand here -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

New question; leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, let me tell you what was happening on the other side of the doors while you were getting your picture taken outside Mount Sinai today. According to the director of emergency and the triage nurse, nine people were stuck waiting in the emergency room to get beds. Some had been waiting since Sunday, some since yesterday, and the day's rush hadn't even started.

You showed up with a cheque for some $600,000. This hospital is running a deficit of $7 million. These people are waiting because of your health care policies in Ontario. These are your cuts that have led to these people being piled up in emergency wards and led to ambulances not being able to take patients to hospital emergency wards.

Stand up now, Premier. Admit that when it comes to the problems connected with health care in this province, you are the problem. You are not the solution; your cheque does nothing; you're the problem.

Hon Mr Harris: "An elderly woman turned away from two area hospitals last weekend died Christmas day. The ambulance in which she was riding Sunday was turned away from Queensway Carleton Hospital and the Ottawa Civic because their emergency rooms were full" - Ottawa Citizen, December 26, 1987. The Liberals were in government.

What has happened since then is that money has been thrown into a system and not solved the problem. Today I want to congratulate the Minister of Health, I want to congratulate the Chair of Management Board and I want to congratulate the hospitals involved for truly working on an emergency room plan that in both the short term and the long term will prove to be effective, finally, after 12 years and three governments.

Mr McGuinty: Let's be straight on this issue. You're not the health care guy. You didn't run at the time of the last election saying, "Vote for me and I'll improve health care in Ontario." The least you can do is be honest about that. That's not why you're in government. That's not your shtick. You're the cut guy. So you're the first guy to cut $800 million -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Minister of Social Services, come to order. Government whip, come to order. Member for Brant-Haldimand, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie. You see, I don't know what you're doing, but I heard you heckling.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, I heard you. I'm certain it was you; I'm positive it was you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I don't want congratulations. I just want you to come to order. Thank you.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you can talk about other governments all you want. You cut $800 million out of hospital budgets in Ontario. You're not in government because you think health care is a good thing. For you, it's something that gets in the way and costs too much money. Let's be very clear about that. You didn't get into government to advance the cause of health care in Ontario; you got in there because you wanted to make cuts, and that has come at the expense of health care in Ontario.

Let's go back to the original issue. If patient care is such a priority, why did it take six months to cut a cheque? Why did you hang on to $225 million? Why did you keep it in the drawer after making so much great fanfare about it being spent to help patients?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, I would suggest that the member should read the Common Sense Revolution. In fact, had you read it earlier you might not be where you're sitting today, particularly if you had understood the problems and how far back your administration, followed by the NDP administration - the 10-year record, the lost decade - set this province. You might have understood just a little bit better.

We're happy to stack our record of now $18.7 billion of record health care spending, of restructuring health care, of massive new investments into cardiac care, massive new investments into the Ontario drug benefit program, massive new investments into seniors, into long-term care, into restructuring - finally having the courage and the leadership to do what for 10 years two successive premiers and administrations, the Liberal and the NDP, did not have the courage to carry through what every professional in the health care field said needed to be done. We are doing that and more, and it is a better health care system today as a result.

Mr McGuinty: Just so we're very straight about the record here in terms of when these significant delays started occurring in our emergency wards, and these backup problems, let's look to the Emergency Services Working Group's final report, a document you commissioned. Do you know what it happens to say? It says, "The current trend towards increased occurrences began in October 1996, and has risen most steeply in the past few months."

The director of the hospital you visited today said that as to those nine patients who are waiting to find a bed inside the hospital but can't because of the cutbacks you've made to that hospital, that's an occurrence that has happened for the first time in over 10 years. It is your health care policies that are causing these problems. It is your cuts to hospital budgets that are hurting Ontario patients.

You're the problem, you're not the solution, and showing up outside some hospital door today, cheque in hand, for another in a long series of photo ops isn't going to change the minds of Ontarians. The number one issue today in this province is health care. You're the problem, you're not the solution, and a photo op isn't going to change that. Now stand up and apologize for the fact that you hung back on this money for six months.

Hon Mr Harris: I would just like to repeat that you don't seem to get it, about the process of government. You sat there for five years and made no reforms to the process of government. Government is about process; we understand that. Of course there was a period of time from the announcement to make sure that these dollars in fact solved the problem. Of course there were a lot of consultations with those involved in the emergency rooms and the departments in the hospitals across this province. The CEO of Mount Sinai Hospital, which I visited today, while the minister was busy processing cheques for other hospitals -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Clearly we acknowledge that sometimes process gets in the way of people. I acknowledged that, I admitted that, I indicated that on behalf of myself, my office, all of government, this process, but I tell you this: In the 17 years I've been in this Legislature, we are the only party that has stood against process getting in the way of helping people. The minister is to be congratulated for getting through that process, unlike any other government has in the 17 years I've been here.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You've become a master at blaming everyone else in the province for your agenda and what your agenda is doing to hospitals. You've cut hospitals to finance your income tax scheme. That's evident to everybody.

You go out there and you tell this story to the media and you leave out of the story that you've already taken $800 million out of hospitals. You leave out of the story that this year hospitals in Ontario are $300 million in debt because of your cuts. And you leave out something else. You leave out the fact that it was your colleagues on Management Board who held up this funding to help fix emergency rooms. Premier, do you deny that your cabinet colleagues at Management Board had this proposal before them three times over the last six months and did nothing with it? Do you deny that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let me deal with the

preamble of the member's question. It's as the result of our income tax policies that higher-income earners are paying a bigger percentage of our dollars now than under the NDP. It's the result of our income tax changes that lower- and middle-income earners are now paying less. But it's also a result of 408,000 new jobs and more revenue for Ontario. It's very important that you understand that.

The reason you need to understand that is that our revenues are somewhere around $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion higher as the result of our tax policies. Health care funding is somewhere around $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion higher. It is as the result of our policies that we've been able to fund in excess of $1 billion of brand new money to fund priority areas in the health care system.

Mr Hampton: The Premier is proud that in an American economic boom he gets more tax revenue at the same time he's taking $800 million out of hospitals. He's proud of that.

Premier, you studiously avoided answering the question. The question is: Your cabinet colleagues on Management Board had this proposal before them three times. Ernie Eves, Deputy Premier, sits in cabinet, sits on Management Board; Dave Johnson who sits beside you is on Management Board; Chris Hodgson who sits behind you is on Management Board.

In the six months that this proposal went to Management Board three times, did you ever think to lean over to one of them and say, "Gee, you know, there's a really serious problem happening in those emergency rooms; people are dying; other people are suffering unnecessarily"? Did you every think to lean over and talk to one of your colleagues and say, "We've got to get that money to those emergency rooms; we've got to do something about people's health care"?

Hon Mr Harris: It's pretty much a matter of record what I said and what I did, but also a matter of record is the extraordinary effort of the Minister of Health and of the Chair of Management Board, not only to ensure - albeit, as we indicated, the process did not work as fast as we wanted it to. We have acknowledged that. It got in the way here and we have publicly acknowledged that, as the member will know. Notwithstanding that, the challenge was not to see how many dollars you could throw out the door as quickly as you could, the way you did, which led us to bankruptcy.

The challenge they were wrestling with throughout the summer and working with our partners on was to ensure that these new dollars, on top of the billion or so new dollars we've already flowed to health care, actually went to solve the problem. As you will know, there's a 12- to 15-year record of your administration putting more money in, which did not solve the problem.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you are trying very hard not to answer the question, but the trail doesn't end there.

The reality is that your government announced $5 million for nurse practitioners. We haven't seen any of that.

You announced $36 million to attract and retain physicians in underserviced areas. We haven't seen any of that.

You announced $60 million for mental health. We haven't seen that.

You went into Ear Falls and you announced $300,000 for the Ear Falls clinic. People there have seen $5,000 after six months.

You announced $400 million last year for hospital restructuring, and hospitals have only gotten $154 million of it. The list goes on and on.

You created this problem in the hospitals. You went in and you cut without having services out in the community that would provide people with health care. You created the problem. Your colleagues on Management Board made the problem worse. Admit it, Premier, and while you're at it will you tell us, when are the other hospitals in Ontario going to get the money you promised and that they need to deliver health care?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me correct the record on some of the information you put forward. Ear Falls is now in receipt of $16,000 a month, exactly the commitment we made. They're very happy, and they too thank the Minister of Health for cutting through the process and getting the money flowing.

Here's the problem. Between 1985 and 1995 the NDP and Liberal governments did this: You closed more than 10,000 hospital beds; under the social contract you stripped $590 million from the wages of doctors, nurses and health care workers, including those in my favourite unions, CUPE and OPSEU, from all of those workers. You stripped that money out but you made no investments back in.

When you talk about the reduction of nurses - and there has been a reduction of nurses - three quarters of that occurred under your administration. That's where the majority of the reductions occurred. This comes from the Canadian Institute for Health Information analysis, not us, you see.

The problem is you cut this money out but you did not reinvest. The Minister of Health and the Chair of Management Board and the Minister of Finance and this government have not only -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. New question.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, my next question is also to the Premier and I want to thank you for cutting him off before he goes into another rhetorical flight and makes a whole bunch of other promises that turn out to be completely phony.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, I want to ask you about a related question. You see, it's not just in health care that you make these phony announcements. Over two years ago you tried to wipe out pay equity and then the court stepped in and said you can't wipe out pay equity, you have to pay the lowest-paid women in the province, and they ordered you to pay. So you made an announcement that you were going to come up with $140 million in pay equity payments for those women. Guess what, Premier? Just like the hospitals, it's months later and those low-paid women haven't heard from your or your government.

Premier, are you going to throw another tempter tantrum and tell your fellows on Management Board to pay up and to honour the promise you made?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We are spending more money on pay equity than any government in the history of this province. The Minister of Finance, who also sits on Management Board, has budgeted record amounts of dollars, far in excess of your government. We've also put before the people a plan to do. Unlike the Liberals in Ottawa when it comes to pay equity, who promise one thing and then renege, which they do quite often on a number of issues, unlike their failing and unforgiving and abysmal record on pay equity, along with a lot of their promises, we honoured our commitment to pay equity.

We have budgeted and are allocating and working with our partners in flowing far more dollars than did even your government, although I acknowledge this: Your government commitment to pay equity is at least equal to ours, far in excess of the Liberal Party.

Mr Hampton: I don't disagree with you that the federal Liberals in Ottawa talked a good line on pay equity and now they don't want to hear the words.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on.

Supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, this is a matter of the courts, the courts reviewing your government's record and finding that you are in breach of the Charter of Rights and the courts ordering your government to pay some of the lowest-paid women in Ontario $140 million in pay equity payments.

You made the statement 12 months ago that you were going to honour the court decision, and just like the hospital emergency case, months have gone by and these people, who are some of the lowest-paid people in the province, haven't heard a word from your government. In fact, we are told that the bill has now gone up by a further $230 million.

Premier, you arranged a photo op today to go to Mount Sinai. What I'm asking you to do is to honour another one of those promises that you made and you haven't paid. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I at least appreciate that the member acknowledges that we both agree on the Liberal record, an abysmal record on pay equity both in Ottawa and at Queen's Park. Clearly a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.

You're right, we have committed and set aside $140 million in cash this year for one-time retroactive payments. This was to cover the proxy pay equity costs, as the courts suggested we do. Unlike the Liberals in Ottawa, when the courts suggest something, we do it.

Here was the process challenge, and I think the member is challenging me to see if we can't cut through the process a little quicker. The 1994 survey data did not reflect the changes that employers had undergone, and certainly it was determined by all of the agencies, including those that would be potential recipients of money, that it wasn't right to use the five-year-old data. We do not want people to fall through the cracks.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Harris: They know the money is coming. The survey has been circulated. That information is coming into the Ministry of Finance now and we are confident that -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I understand that the Liberals in Ottawa have a problem with pay equity. I understand that the Liberals here voted against proxy pay equity. I understand all this, but this is about your credibility. You, Premier, have gone across this province and you have made all kinds of announcements about health care. Those announcements have turned out to be phony and empty, and this is just another example.

These are some of the lowest-paid women in the province. The courts have said, under the Charter of Rights and under pay equity law, that your government should have paid them. You can make announcements. You can say, "We budgeted for it." The fact is that just like the hospitals, these lowest-paid women haven't received the money they are legally entitled to.

Premier, we know you have no problem finding $6 billion to finance your income tax scheme -

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: - but why is it that when it comes to people's health care, when it comes to the lowest-paid women in the province, you stall, you stall, you stall? What's it going to take to get the money to the hospitals -

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say that I appreciate the member's question and his concern; it is unparalleled and undaunted in support of women across this province. I accept the question in that context. I invite the member to work with us. I'm told we are still awaiting from some agencies verification of exactly whom the funding is to go to.

If the member and some of his colleagues - who have demonstrated a consistent and substantial commitment to pay equity and to paying women particularly equitably, because these are some of the lower-income women who are awaiting this - can assist us in getting through the process here with the agencies in identifying those who should get the money, we would be very appreciative of that help and assistance.

I would say this: The member also talked about the income tax cuts. Those tax cuts benefited -

The Speaker: New question.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It has to do with Ipperwash and the shooting death of a First Nations person and the conviction of an OPP officer and criminal negligence. It has been three years now, and we've been pushing for an inquiry. Our worst fears are coming true, and that is that key records essential to Ipperwash are being systematically erased. That is a serious problem.

I will give you one specific which we found out about only a few weeks ago. The key person who was the liaison between your interministerial group and the police command post left the ministry on April 19, 1996. As soon as he left, his files were erased, and 30 days later the backup files were erased. Key documents required for an inquiry into Ipperwash are being systematically erased.

Premier, will you at least agree to this: that you will send all your cabinet ministers and your ministries that are affected by Ipperwash an instruction that all Ipperwash files that have not been destroyed be retained for the foreseeable future?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate that. I'll follow up on the specific files that went missing and ask you how it could possibly happen. I'll just say to you that the individual who was involved in this, a well-regarded OPP officer, left the ministry on April 19, 1996. Immediately after that, these key files were erased. The Solicitor General said this about those files:

"Indeed we are concerned about the loss of these files in terms of our ability to retain very important and critical files. I share your concern with respect to that. The current deputy has initiated a review of this situation and a review of the retention policy."

My question to you, Premier, is this: Nothing could be perhaps higher profile than your involvement in Ipperwash, the first death of a First Nations person in a dispute with the government at least in the last 100 years. Yet a mere few months after it happened, right in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, key files were allowed to be erased. Prior to that, had you made any instructions to ensure that those files would be retained so we could have a fair and obviously unbiased inquiry into this sorry Ipperwash affair?

Hon Mr Harris: I'll refer this to the Solicitor General.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): With respect to the inquiry - and the member raised this earlier - the hard copies of the significant e-mails were printed by the former employee referenced by the member in the deputy minister's office, as was his professional practice. Those copies remain in the possession of the ministry. As a result of the FOI request, the privacy commissioner was satisfied with the employee's explanation of the manner in which he managed his paper and electronic record.

This order recited parts of an affidavit of this employee, who had a practice of printing significant e-mails and deleting unimportant ones. The e-mail account was closed by staff in accordance with normal office operating procedure, and this practice is consistent across government and predates the term of this administration.

The privacy commissioner was satisfied with the manner in which these records were managed, and the ministry remains in possession of all documents and has released all responsive records to the privacy commissioner, consistent with the act.

In conclusion, the government has complied with the -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, third party.

ABORTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I again have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, you have refused to speak in this House about the issue that was raised yesterday and you have refused to advocate on behalf of women whose access to safe, legal abortions has been jeopardized by your government.

First, your government decided there would be no funding for new stand-alone clinics despite the fact that the existing clinics in the province are bursting at the seams trying to meet women's urgent, time-sensitive demands. Then your government allowed the restructuring commission to close hospitals which performed abortion services without providing additional funds to other providers. As a result, there's been a loss of services to women who seek them.

Now you've agreed to take away the automatic exemption for abortion services, as well as labour and delivery services, to physicians and specialists who exceed their billing cap. You have not guaranteed that abortion is among the services designated, and I quote, "as underserviced domains of practice," which qualify for exemption.

Yesterday, you refused to speak to this issue, an important concern for women across the province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs Boyd: Will you stand up today as minister responsible for women's issues and guarantee women that their legal right to an abortion will be respected in Ontario?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I know the reason for the question by the member, and I think it would be appropriate if I refer this to the Minister of Health.

The Speaker: You know what? You can't tell me what your knowledge is of the question and then refer it. You just refer a question or you don't refer it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, you're talking to me about you know the reason. Minister, I'm not debating this. I'll just warn you this time. You can refer it, but please in future just refer it.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll answer the question if you think that would be appropriate.

The Speaker: OK, fine. Minister, go ahead.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response, I'm not sure whether I understood you, but I'm not unhappy about answering the question.

We have not in fact refused to provide abortion services in this province.

I know the member very well, and she has been concerned about this issue, as I have. She has some concerns about the agreement that was struck with the Ontario Medical Association with regard to fee structures. She has some concerns about availability of abortions because of aging physicians who are refusing to perform abortions. We all heard in the media last night that there are some physicians who, for their own safety, will not be performing abortions in the month of November.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Don't you share those concerns?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We're all concerned, men and women, in this House. This is not just a women's issue; it's a family issue. It's an issue that affects all families.

I think the specific question had to do with the fee structure, therefore deterring certain physicians. I think the Minister of Health is better able to respond to that than I am and I will refer -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: No, Minister. The question was about how you are performing your responsibilities as the minister. That's what it's about. We have not heard one word from you in terms of the cancellation of any funding for new stand-alone clinics. We haven't heard one word from you about the problems that women face who would have accessed services at hospitals that are now being closed. We haven't heard one word from you about the fact that although the minister stood here and said money would be available for this, none of it has been flowed.

In fact, we have news from hospitals that say no, they haven't seen any money. One hospital, the Etobicoke General Hospital, tells us that yesterday they were told that next week they may get some money.

We're asking what you are doing on behalf of women who are finding that their access, their time-sensitive access, to abortions is being blocked by your government's policies.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I think that is more appropriately referred to the Minister of Health.

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): This was an issue that was raised yesterday. I indicated at that time that we had accepted the recommendations regarding the reimbursement of specialist services. I also indicated yesterday that specialist services will continue to be available to those who need them. We have a specialist retention initiative which allows specialists to apply for exemption from the threshold.

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. As you know, my riding of Oxford has the largest number of dairy producers in Ontario. In fact, Woodstock is known as the dairy capital of Canada. But my dairy farmers are concerned that other countries are trying to undermine Canada's dairy system. As I speak, I understand that the United States and New Zealand are trying to convince the World Trade Organization panel in Geneva to open up Canada's dairy market. Can you update the House on the status of the WTO talks in Geneva?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Oxford for that question. Yes, indeed, both the US and New Zealand have challenged Canada and its milk pricing methods. They're trying to call that an export subsidy.

It's not the first time that Canada has been challenged. My colleague from Oxford knows that I have had the opportunity of visiting dairy farms in his riding, as I have throughout eastern Ontario. As someone who knows the dairy industry, I can assure my colleague and all members of this House that Ontario's interests are being represented in Geneva as we speak by staff from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, along with staff from economic development and trade.

From time to time we have our differences with the federal government, but I can tell you that on this one we're very much working together as we negotiate at the WTO. We very much support the dairy industry and supply management.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much, Minister, for the update. Can you tell the House and the dairy farmers in my riding what will happen once the hearings wrap up today?

Interjections.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Premier. Today in the gallery we have the Laporte family: Mr Roger Laporte and his wife. They're from Cumberland, Ontario. Tragically, last year they lost their son Michel as the result of a motorist who ran a red light. That motorist who ran the red light got off with a $500 fine, is still driving, and even had a record of running red lights and running stop signs for many years.

In an open letter to you, Mr Premier, Mr Roger Laporte has asked you for help in making red light cameras pass through legislation as soon as possible in order to save other lives. On behalf of Mr Laporte and the Laporte family, who are here, I ask you to make a commitment today that your government will stop obstructing the legislation to allow red light cameras in this province, that you as Premier will listen to Mr Laporte and his family and support the installation of red light cameras throughout this province.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Certainly we extend our condolences to the Laporte family and applaud them for, in their grief and in their sorrow, advancing a cause to try and ensure that no other father or mother or son or grandparent shares or goes through that grief.

We have done a number of things, as you know. We have substantially increased fines. We have brought in community zone legislation. We've announced a community safety package. We have been working with a number of police forces who have called upon us.

There are mixed reviews on one type of red light camera. I think it was the Australian study that said accidents actually went up about 71%, rear-end collisions in particular.

Mr Colle: That's not true.

Hon Mr Harris: There has been no dispute on the new technology of cameras that target the driver and affect points in those areas. The minister, who is not here today, has worked hard to see if we can't clear the way to get these new advanced cameras in place here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Oakwood, you can't accuse another member of not telling the truth. I would ask you to withdraw.

Mr Colle: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you. The member for Prescott-Russell, supplementary.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): The person responsible for running the red light and killing Michel Laporte had previously been stopped twice for the same infraction, running a red light. These are only the times he was caught. A few days prior to the fatal accident, he was pulled over. The policeman gave him a warning. Why? Probably because the officer knew that it would be his word against the driver's and that without witnesses there would be no other possible evidence to support the charge. In our justice system, those accused have the benefit of the doubt. When are victims going to have the necessary tools to protect their rights?

Premier, every week someone is killed by a red light runner. If your government refuses to support Bill 20, God forbid that one day you will be faced with a situation where a parent, a child, a loved one or a friend will have wished that you had done so.

Would you tell this House today that you and your government will support the red light camera?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes, of course, we do support red light cameras and technology. We support the technology that would deal with the very problem that you've raised, because the old technology would do nothing to charge that driver. What we need is technology that will charge the driver, will cause points, will affect insurance, will be a deterrent, in addition to all the substantial improvements and deterrents and fines that we've brought on.

If I could quote, when we were talking about photo radar, one of the honourable members said, "The other concern I have about this legislation is that the electronic monitoring and photo radar are aimed at the vehicle as opposed to the driver.... I think it takes it a step away, makes it less effective and is unfair when the ticket comes to the person who is the owner of the vehicle." That was Jim Bradley, MPP for St Catharines. We agree.

We agree as well on the red light technology, and that's why we're excited about the new technology and we would ask you to work with us and the minister to ensure that we can get it in place.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est au ministre du Développement du Nord et des Mines.

Êtes-vous capable de vous énoncer sur ce sujet et nous clarifier que oui, ça va être la politique de votre gouvernement?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I think everyone knows that this government shares his concern and appreciates the importance of ensuring that francophone rights are protected in Ontario. The ability of francophone residents to receive services in the language of their choice is very important to us, as I know it is to the member opposite.

Each ministry is addressing the needs of the francophone community as details of devolving services are finalized. For example, the continuation of French-language services under the Provincial Offences Act is being addressed through the memorandum of understanding that must be agreed to before a municipality takes on that responsibility.

Similarly, it is our intention to provide for the continuation of bilingual services in appropriate instances through the order establishing each area services board. French-language services would be covered through a minister's order as services are considered on a program-by-program basis in accordance with provincial policy.

M. Bisson : Encore au même ministre, je veux être sûr de ce que vous nous dites aujourd'hui dans l'Assemblée. Vous nous dites que si un service est maintenant donné par la province et que c'est dans une région désignée, vous allez vous assurer, programme par programme, que ce service va demeurer désigné et protégé, que les francophones vont avoir les garanties nécessaires d'aller rechercher les services dans leur municipalité désignée sous la Loi 8 ? Pouvez-vous nous donner cette clarification, s'il vous plaît.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the member has worked with the committee at the House level on this and with my parliamentary assistant, and I'd be glad to work with him after the House or in the near future to get letters to clarify it. Area services boards, as he is well aware, are complicated. It's a way to deliver service that was asked for by northern municipalities in varying regions, from Fort Frances and Rainy River right through to the Cochrane-Timmins area that the member represents, and the programs could vary substantially.

What we're undertaking to do is work program by program and make sure that provincial policy is adhered to and that French services are delivered in accordance with provincial policy.

CURRICULUM

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. In my constituency of Lambton I've been approached by many members of the community, including students and - the opposition might be surprised - also teachers with regard to the benefits of the new province-wide curriculum at the elementary level. Could you inform me, along with all my colleagues in this House, what this government has done to improve the quality of education?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I would be happy to do that, because this is a most important question. As the member for Lambton and all the members of this House will know, parents for many years have been saying that we need a challenging and clear and more rigorous curriculum because previous governments have let the curriculum slip.

This government has recognized that the curriculum is central to a quality education program. We started with the kindergarten program and introduced a new program, the first in 50 years. In grades 1 to 8, the curriculum in math and language at the elementary level stressing the basics was introduced over one year ago. More recently, science and technology, the first science curriculum in many years; the first technology program ever in many grades has been introduced.

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

Hon David Johnson: The key part of this is that there are expectations year by year so that teachers and parents and students know exactly -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Beaubien: I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the opposition has difficulty swallowing good news, especially when we're talking about quality education. Minister, could you tell me what your ministry is doing to ensure that our teachers have the necessary training to teach the new curriculum?

Hon David Johnson: This is good news. I will say that the first thing we did was we started with teachers and we had teams of teachers developing the curriculum. That was the basic start. What we have done since that point is to set up teams to train the trainers. These are ministry teams that will be training the trainers from each board across Ontario.

Next we developed the electronic curriculum planner, which helps the teachers and helps the principals. Next we developed a video entitled Implementing Ontario's Curriculum, which again is to assist teachers and principals.

All of these initiatives are to ensure that the new curriculum is implemented. I'm proud to say that with this initiative, the teachers across the province of Ontario have begun to implement the highest quality curriculum ever in the history of Ontario.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you know that your government has made a mess of the property tax system. Six different property tax bills have been before this House. Municipalities have not been able to set their budgets until September of this year. The appeals system for the property tax system is not yet in place.

Your Deputy Premier at the AMO conference in August stated that he would have a bill before this House as soon as we got back so that the property taxpayers who want to appeal their high assessments could do so before October 30.

Yesterday you're reported to have said, "We've gone over the heads of municipal authorities on a number of occasions to say, `You're not going to drive our small business people out of business,' and I'm serving notice that I'll do it again if I have to."

Are you going to call the property tax bill? There's nothing on the House

schedule for Wednesday and Thursday, as far as we're concerned, as far as we know. Are you going to do that or are you going to tell us, what are your plans to help those businesses that you are literally putting out of business because of the high property tax level in this province? These people have not had a chance to appeal their assessment. What are you going to do?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm going to refer it to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the bill before the House now could be passed in three and a half seconds. There is no need for two more days' debate. You've already used up one day's debate.

The appeal date, the end of October, was exactly what your critic asked for, exactly what their critic asked for. Then, when you got what you asked for, "Oh, maybe we'll change it." You're playing politics with it. You've had the day of debate on the bill. We'll be glad to call it when you'll pass it second and third on the nod. You don't need any further debate; you've had it. Pass it. If you agree with it, you can pass it. We gave you what you wanted. I know you find taking yes for an answer very tough.

Second, we are not increasing any small business person's taxes, and I can tell you we will not permit that to happen. If need be, we will pass legislation to make sure it doesn't happen.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd seek unanimous consent to ask the minister a supplementary question.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent to ask a supplementary question? There were a couple of noes on that one.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I request consent to revert to motions.

The Speaker: Consent to revert to motions? Agreed.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I request unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to evening sittings.

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

Hon Mr Hodgson: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 19, 1998, the House shall not sit on the evening of Wednesday, October 21, 1998.

The Speaker: Mr Hodgson moves that notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 19, 1998, the House shall not sit on the evening of Wednesday, October 21, 1998. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by hundreds of constituents of mine relating to the lack of this government's policy and strategy in terms of the Alzheimer strategy, which is very much needed.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We are writing in support of government action on behalf of people with Alzheimer disease and their caregivers and to remind you of issues that are of concern.

We are also deeply disappointed at the lack of a timely response by your government. These same issues were brought to your attention prior to the June 1995 election through the Alzheimer Association of Ontario. On May 26, 1995, the Alzheimer Association of Ontario received a letter from Mike Harris, along with a response to those issues from his policy inquiry team. We want to know what your party has done to fulfill those promises contained in the document that states:

"`A Harris government will: develop a province-wide strategy on Alzheimer disease; initiate province-wide consultations; enhance Alzheimer research; institute special supports for caregivers; create a partnership between yourself and the AAO; conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of Alzheimer disease; ensure adequate community supports are in place to meet the needs of persons with Alzheimer disease and their caregivers.'

"Therefore, at the Alzheimer Society, we provide greatly needed help to people with Alzheimer disease and their loved ones. We need funds redirected to our community-based side of the system and an Alzheimer strategy to provide help for today and hope for tomorrow."

These are signed by hundreds of constituents who are concerned. I am very proud and pleased to add my name to that petition.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions from the citizens of Hamilton and Hamilton-Wentworth outraged by the Harris property tax increases.

"Whereas the Harris government's `downloading' to municipal taxpayers is directly responsible for the $36.3-million shortfall to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' is directly responsible for creating a property tax crisis in our region; and

"Whereas the Harris government, while boasting about its 30% tax cut which benefits mainly the wealthy, is making hard-working families, seniors, homeowners and businesses pay the price with outrageous property tax hikes and user fees for services; and

"Whereas city and regional councillors are being unfairly blamed and forced to explain these huge tax hikes, Hamiltonians know that what's really going on is that they are being forced to pay huge property tax increases to fund Harris's 30% tax giveaway to the rich; and

"Whereas homeowners, including seniors and low-income families, are facing huge property tax increases ranging from several hundred to thousands of dollars; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' has led to huge property tax increases for business that will force many small and medium-sized businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth to close or leave the community, putting people out of work; and

"Whereas Hamilton-Wentworth region is proposing that the Harris government share in the costs of an expanded rebate program, worth about $3 million region-wide;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government immediately eliminate the $38-million downloading shortfall that is devastating and angering homeowners as well as killing business in Hamilton-Wentworth."

I proudly add my name to those of these local petitioners.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition with 198 signatures on it.

"Whereas the population of rural Ontario is unique in that it is spread out over a wide geographic area; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education and Training's funding formula as outlined in the `student-focused funding pupil accommodation grant' uses the same benchmarks for all of Ontario, urban and rural; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education and Training's `small schools grant' and `remote and rural boards grant' do not provide adequate additional funds for rural boards to offer quality education to our children in rural Ontario;

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

"That amendments be made to current Ministry of Education and Training funding formulas to provide district school boards with additional funds that reflect the realities of providing quality education to the children of rural Ontario."

WATER QUALITY

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we petition the Minister of the Environment to supply the people of Ontario with a laboratory result concerning the existence or lack of PCBs and lead in our drinking water;

"Whereas we petition the Minister of the Environment to supply the people of Ontario with a laboratory result which contains the actual results of any contaminant in our drinking water;

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

Some 87 signatures are contained within this.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Today I present to the Legislature a petition from 88 residents in my community. It concerns the introduction of proportional correction in the Ontario Election Act and reads as follows:

"We respectfully request that the Ontario Election Act be modified so that the residual votes in each constituency (ie the votes not used to elect the winner of that constituency) be accumulated with the residual votes in all other constituencies and used to elect an additional 26 MPPs. They would be selected from published party lists, in proportion to the total number of residual votes for each political party."

Again, on behalf of 88 members, I respectfully submit this to the Legislature.

ALZHEIMER DISEASE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition directed to the attention of the Minister of Health. It reads:

"In support of government action on behalf of people with Alzheimer disease and their caregivers, and to remind you of issues that are of concern.

"I'm also deeply disappointed at the lack of a timely response by our government. These same issues were brought to your attention prior to the June 1995 election through the Alzheimer Association of Ontario, the AAO. On May 26, 1995, the AAO received a letter from Mike Harris, along with a response to those issues from his policy inquiry team. We want to know what your party has done to fulfill those promises contained in the document, that states:

"`A Harris government will develop a province-wide strategy for Alzheimer disease; initiate province-wide consultations; enhance Alzheimer research; institute special supports for caregivers; create a partnership between yourself and the AAO; conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of Alzheimer disease; ensure adequate community supports are in place to meet the needs of persons with AD and their caregivers.'

"At the Alzheimer Society, we provide greatly needed help to people with AD and their loved ones. We need funds redirected towards our community-based side of the system and an Alzheimer strategy to provide help for today and hope for tomorrow."

It is signed by hundreds of people in Thunder Bay.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas many Ontarians have been infected with the hepatitis C virus as a result of transfusions using contaminated blood; and

"Whereas the current compensation package only provides funding for those people infected between the years 1986 and 1990; and

"Whereas in Canada there are at least 20,000 surviving victims who were infected with hepatitis C before 1986, who placed their faith in the blood system and are now suffering;

I affix my signature.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Minister of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I add my signature, as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive and present petitions on behalf of Hamiltonians who are trying to save the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced the closure of Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario, through the Health Services Restructuring Commission, is divesting its responsibility for mental health care without hearing from the community first; and

"Whereas community-based mental health care providers will bear the brunt of this ill-fated decision by being forced to meet what is sure to be an increased demand for their services; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is not adequately monitoring community-based mental health services for their effectiveness, efficiency or whether they're even delivering the agreed-upon programs in the first place, according to the 1997 annual report of the Provincial Auditor; and

"Whereas the community pays the price for cuts to mental health care;

"Further, to call for full hearings to seek community solutions to community issues and to democratically decide the future of mental health care for the citizens of Hamilton and area."

Again, I continue to support the petitioners from my hometown.

PERSONAL WATERCRAFT

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, draw the attention of the Parliament to the following:

"That we are very much concerned about the excessive personal watercraft - speed, danger, noise and more on our shores of Red Bay.

"It is unacceptable to stand high-speed chasing for hours, particularly in areas where people wish to swim.

"It is unacceptable that residents, property owners, guests and tourists have to take refuge indoors, closing their doors and windows due to the noise and gas smell, swimmers and children have to return to shore to avoid accidents, wildlife have to flee, if they can; the impact on fish and bird habitats must be tremendous; birds are chased and harassed; fishing boats have to stop fishing after being surrounded or chased etc.

"Accidents are unavoidable if this situation is not brought under control. Swimmers fear for their safety. At present, only a 100-foot protection zone with a 10-kilometre per hour speed limit exists. This may be sufficient for most boaters but it is by far not enough for the Jet Skis or personal watercraft which can and do manoeuvre in very shallow waters at high speeds. This is especially dangerous for shallow-water beaches such as Red Bay where children and swimmers are used to being safe up to over 400 feet where it is still possible to stand.

It is urgent to extend the 100-foot zone in order to avoid accidents. In the United States, restriction zones of two miles exist in some areas, while jet drives are prohibited in other areas.

"As we do not have any further laws in this regard, we ask for a noise bylaw which would restrict the noise output of all recreational boats in order to protect human beings and wildlife from excessive noise levels. We ask for restriction in noise and speed within two miles of the shoreline. If certain legislative measures were taken, accidents, arguments and devaluation of waterfront property would be reduced or prevented. It is imperative to pass legislation before severe accidents or deaths result.

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against excessive Jet Ski or personal watercraft - noise, speed and danger. We do not object to personal watercraft but the unsafe and disruptive use of them."

I affix my name to the top.

DENTAL CARE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads like this:

"Whereas a new

schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act; and

"Whereas the new

schedule fails to meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities, reduces services, places barriers to accessing care and creates an environment for various different dental programs across Ontario; and

"Whereas the move away from an emphasis on prevention under the new dental

schedule brings significant health risks for children and people with disabilities who are often least able to practise good oral hygiene; and

"Whereas the new dental

schedule interferes with the patients' rights to consent to treatment by requiring administrators, and not patients or substitute decision-makers, to authorize and deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas there is no method for the patient to appeal a decision by a plan administrator to deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas pre-authorizations, called predeterminations in the new plan, will require that a higher level of confidential patient health information be disclosed to dental plan administrators; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has caused confusion among patients by introducing the plan without adequate consultation and has not included any affected patient groups in consultations after releasing the new dental plan;

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

"Delay full implementation of the new dental plan until the requirement for predeterminations is removed, patient confidentiality is protected, the plan emphasizes prevention in oral health care, and the government consults directly with affected patients to ensure the new plan will meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities."

I affix my signature to this very able petition.

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River):

Whereas the tax scheme instituted by the Harris Conservatives provides real benefits only to individuals with the highest incomes, while forcing cuts to health care, schools, environmental protection and other vital services; and

Whereas 25% of the money from the tax scheme goes to the top 6% of individual taxpayers in Ontario; and

Whereas rebuilding public services will only be possible when this tax scheme for the wealthy is repealed;

Therefore this House urges an immediate reinvestment in health care, education, environmental protection and other services in our communities, financed by reversing the tax scheme for the top 6% of individual taxpayers.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mr Hampton has moved opposition day motion number 2. Mr Hampton.

Mr Hampton: The defining issue in Ontario today is where you stand on giving billions of dollars to high-income individuals in an income tax scheme while taking that money away from health care, education, environmental protection and other community services that are important to all of us and that are crucial, absolutely crucial, for sustaining and building the Ontario we treasure.

The income tax scheme put in place by the Harris Conservatives, now that it is fully phased in, will take $6 billion a year to pay for. The question we have to ask is, does everyone benefit equally from that $6-billion-a-year income tax scheme? The answer is, not a chance. The top 6%, the 6% who are at the very top of the income and wealth ladder, individuals with taxable income over $80,000 a year, get 25% of the $6-billion-a-year income tax scheme. In other words, more than $1.5 billion are being taken out of health care and education and funnelled into the pockets of people who are already very well off in this province.

Speaker, I want you to know and I want everyone in Ontario to know that New Democrats believe that is wrong. It's wrong to cut health care, education, environmental protection and vital community services to put more money in the pockets of people who are already well off. It's not a case of a little too far a little too fast, as Liberals would say. It's wrong.

People in modest- and middle-income families know perfectly well that they aren't benefiting from this income tax scheme and that they're not going to benefit from this income tax scheme, because whatever little benefit they are supposed to get out of this income tax scheme is more than overwhelmed by dramatically higher tuition fees, is more than overwhelmed by new health care user fees, is more than overwhelmed by property taxes that have gone up and are going to go up and up and up, is more than overwhelmed by new copayment fees, new user fees, new administrative fees, and is more than overwhelmed by the incredible cuts to health care and to education, which all of us depend on.

Middle- and modest-income families across Ontario know that when they add up all the new user fees, the new higher tuition fees, the soaring property taxes, the unchecked pollution in our province, the closing of schools and over-crowded emergency rooms, they are losing from this income tax scheme, they are paying for this income tax scheme in dozens and dozens of ways, all to benefit the 6% at the top of the income and wealth ladder.

Not only that, but the real risk down the road is that this income tax scheme will be institutionalized, will be cemented in place, and that will mean continuing cuts to health care, continuing cuts to education, continuing cuts to the community services we all need to finance this income tax scheme on a year-over-year basis.

I want to say something to my Liberal colleagues, because I think it's here they have to answer for something. Liberals, we have seen in this Legislature, will stand and criticize the income tax scheme.

They criticize the income tax scheme and they acknowledge that money is being taken out of health care to pay for it, they acknowledge that money is being taken out of education to pay for it, they know that money is being taken out of environmental protection to pay for it, yet they say that if they become the next government of Ontario, they will institutionalize this income tax scheme, they will cement it in place.

They will cement in place an income tax scheme that will day in, day out, year in, year out continue to drain money from education, from health care, from environmental protection and from the community services we all need.

I believe Liberals have to come clean on this issue. They have to say to people very directly, do they believe in health care, will they reinvest in health care, will they reinvest in education, or are they going to cement in place an income tax scheme that is going to continue to bleed health care, continue to bleed education, continue to bleed environmental protection? We need a straight answer.

For us as New Democrats the priority is clear. We need to begin reversing this income tax scheme for the 6% at the top of the income and wealth ladder. That would give us more than $1.5 billion to put back into education, back into health care, back into environmental protection, where it will do the most good for the most people.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Aren't they cutting taxes in BC right now?

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines, come to order.

Mr Hampton: I note that the Liberal member here is having a bit of discomfort. I can understand why he would have a bit of discomfort, because I know Mr Bradley is one of the more progressive Liberals and he's probably having a difficult time understanding the position his own party is taking.

Mr Bradley: I'm really against that back-to-work legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Hampton: The Harris Conservatives will promise to keep going with their income tax scheme and with other tax schemes no matter what the damage. We know that. We know that this government over here is not in the tradition of Bill Davis, is not in the tradition of John Robarts. They are not progressive Conservatives. We know this group over here has more in common with Newt Gingrich and some of the right-wing Republicans in the United States or Preston Manning and the Reform Party, who get most of their ideas from the United States. We understand that.

We understand that this outfit over here will continue to undermine public health care, continue to undermine public education, continue to undermine environmental protection because their view of the world is simply this: Most services should be privatized. Their view of the world is that those who have money can afford to buy decent health care; those who have money can afford to buy a decent education; and those who have money can go live in a secluded suburb somewhere, where they don't have to worry about the polluted air. This is a government that believes if you have money, everything's going to be OK.

If you don't have money, you don't matter anyway to this government; just get out of the way. That's becoming quite evident.

New Democrats don't believe in that world. In fact, we believe that if we're going to progress economically as a province, if we're going to progress socially as a province, we have to find a way to ensure that public education is adequately funded, health care is adequately funded and it should not be the American style of health care, which is by definition, if you have money you get health care; if you don't have money you wait. You wait, you get sick and sometimes, too often, you die. We know that's where the Conservatives are.

The Liberals say, if I can quote them, that it would be a big mistake to reverse this income tax scheme, or any part of it that is taking money out of health care, money out of education, money out of environmental protection, money away from community services, and put it back into those services which will do the most good for the most people. That's what Liberals say. Again, I think we need some clarity on this issue. Liberals have said that they would institutionalize, they would cement this income tax scheme in place.

This means that Liberals are prepared to see further cuts to health care, further cuts to education, further cuts to environmental protection, further cuts to the community services that we all need if we're going to progress together.

We need some clarity on this issue; we need a great deal of clarity on this issue. What I hope will emerge today is we will get that clarity. As I say, this is the issue that is not going to go away as we head towards the next election.

Either you believe that this income tax scheme is doing something beneficial for the province and that that benefit is greater than the cuts to health care, greater than the damage being done to education and greater than the damage being done to the environment, or you believe we'd be better off investing in health care, education, environmental protection and community services so we can do the most good for the most people. You can't be in both camps at the same time.

In kicking off this debate today, I look forward to listening to the comments of colleagues on all sides of the House. I hope at the end of the day positions will be clear. I hope all those people out there in Ontario who care very much about health care, care about education, care about environmental protection, care about community services will come away from this day with a much clearer picture of who stands where, who supports the income tax scheme that's cutting health care and education and who stands on the side of health care and education and environmental protection.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to join the debate and say very clearly at the outset that the government disagrees with this resolution and will vote against it. We disagree with its content and we disagree with its intent.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): What about the attack on the Liberals?

Mr Baird: We definitely agree with the attack on the Liberals, I say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

The resolution says the tax cut provides real benefits only to individuals with the highest income. Wrong, totally wrong, not the case at all. Folks with an income of as little as $15,000 get the greatest benefit. Their tax cut is almost 50%. The $24,000-a-year earners get a tax cut of almost 35%. A $28,000 income gets a tax cut of 33%. Those making $38,000 again get a tax cut of more than 30%, and I can only imagine what the tax cut of some of my colleagues across the way will be. This tax cut provides real benefits to working families in the province of Ontario.

The average household in my riding will see more than $100 per household per month. What that's doing in our community to help create jobs and restore hope and opportunity is nothing short of incredible. The economy is doing well because tax cuts help create jobs.

When you factor in the fair share health levy promised in the Common Sense Revolution, it makes the income tax cuts brought forward by the Harris government progressive; it provides real benefit to the people who need it most. Those lower-income working families get a higher tax cut than the rich folks who live on Bay Street in the member for Fort York's riding, those bankers that he represents. Those making more than $68,000 a year get less than a 30% tax cut. So we know the tax cut is progressive and helps those people who need it the most, and that's indeed good news.

In fact, the very rich, like some of my colleagues in the third party, can get as little as an 18% tax cut, so we know how progressive it is and how good-news it is, real benefits for working families.

The opposition doesn't want to hear about the real benefits to working families because it doesn't fit their preconceived notion of the world. As a result of the tax cut, the top 10% of earners will pay a bigger portion of Ontario's personal income tax, 45.9%, and that's before they cut taxes when they paid only 42.8%. In other words, their share of the personal income tax burden is actually up by more than 7%, and that's important to note.

Tax cuts create jobs. Since the tax cut started, almost half of the new jobs created in Canada have been in Ontario.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Say that again, because I don't think they heard it.

Mr Baird: My friend wants me to say it again, and I will. Since the tax cut started, almost half of the new jobs created in Canada have been created right here in Ontario. There were 62,000 last month alone; 62% of the jobs created in Canada, the member for Lanark says.

And 408,000 jobs have been created in Ontario since September 1995. By contrast, in the 1990-95 period, Ontario lost jobs while the rest of the country of Canada gained, and that's worth noting.

This resolution says the tax cut is financed from health cuts. Wrong, wrong. In fact, the tax cut is bringing in more revenue. When we cut taxes, the government's bringing in more money. Isn't that funny? It's exactly like the last government but in reverse. When they raised taxes, they brought in less revenue. When they squeezed harder there just wasn't as much to squeeze, and when we cut taxes we bring in more money, particularly from high-income earners. They're paying more taxes now than they did before as a share of the provincial income tax revenues. The members opposite don't want to talk about that because it doesn't fit into their political plans. Never let the facts get in the way.

They talk about cuts to health care. We've increased spending on health care by more than $1 billion, which is important to note.

I want to say to the member for Lake Nipigon that I can respect the New Democratic Party. They want big government, they want big spending and they're going to be honest about it in the public policy discussions in Ontario. They disagree with the tax cut and they want to get rid of it. At least they're prepared to pony up and be honest with the people of Ontario, unlike our colleagues in Liberal Party, who always want to play both sides of the same issue. That's something that's important.

What do the Liberals say on taxes? "It doesn't make sense to offer a tax break which is going to cost us $5 billion a year. We simply cannot offer that tax break without delving into expenditures ultimately in health care and education." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty, in a Kitchener-Waterloo debate on September 22, 1996. That was then and this is now. They want to keep the tax cut. They have changed their minds yet again.

That's yet another reversal, because during the leadup to the last election campaign, "McLeod Reinforces Commitment to Cut Taxes." This is a press release with the Liberal logo on the top. Before balancing the budget, they wanted to cut taxes by $2 billion.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): One per cent per year. Get your facts straight.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr Baird: A $2-billion tax cut. "Ontario Liberal leader Lyn McLeod said tonight a Liberal government in Ontario would cut taxes. `It's time the government started following a policy for zero tolerance for tax increases. A Liberal government will cut overall taxes.'" Very, very interesting, and now they seem to have change their mind.

What else do they say about tax cuts? "I'm not interested in raising taxes on any front. It would send a terrible signal to the business community here to tax a competitive jurisdiction." That was from a speech and question-and-answer session in London, Ontario, on February 9, 1998. So we don't think the Liberals are going to go back on their tax cut commitment.

But there's a very interesting

article - Speaker, I know you're going to be interested in this - from NOW magazine, "How will Grits pay for school pledge?"

"Not surprisingly, the question of how to pay for promises like education improvements was on the agenda at the Liberal caucus retreat in Collingwood last week. MPP Gerard Kennedy" - Dalton McGuinty's right-hand man, quite literally -

Mr Gerretsen: He's his left-hand man.

Mr Baird: The left-hand man, the member says - "says he and some other caucus members favour a reconsideration of the position that they will `maintain the fiscal framework' - McGuinty's words for keeping the Tory tax cut in place."

I'll go on, Speaker, because I know you're interested in this:

"`We spent a fair bit of time talking about that (in Collingwood),' says Kennedy. `That was certainly the centrepiece of a lot of the discussion. It covered a pretty good gamut of points of view. I don't think we have a consensus yet, so we could say there's a difference of opinion here. You can expect that, but we really did do some wrestling, looking at the measures Liberals would like to take and how they would be costed.'"

So we know now that the Liberals are thinking about raising taxes in Ontario and that there is a fight going on - another fight - in the Liberal caucus. Some folks want to raise taxes to pay for big government and big spending and others want to go into the election platform -

Mr Gerretsen: You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Baird: I've got the quote right here from Gerard Kennedy. If the member opposite wants to cut down Gerard Kennedy, I'll let him do that on his own time.

The Liberals have a big problem. They want to have it both ways. They want to spend more money on health, they want to spend more money on education, they want to allow school boards to raise taxes again. The member for York South, Mr Kennedy, has said he wants to raise welfare rates by 21.6%. That's going to cost more than $1 billion a year. We'd like to know how they intend to pay for that.

They want to bring back quotas; the Liberals will have to, inevitably, after the election, should they form a government.

The cost to pay off the union bosses will cost this province billions: higher WCB premiums to pay for increased benefits; bringing back Bill 40, which would send a terrible message to job creation and investment in the province of Ontario.

What else are the Liberals saying?.

"I think people understand that when we make promises, generally that calls for higher tax increases" - CKCO TV interview, March 1,1998.

"I wouldn't give you a tax cut" - Dalton McGuinty, July 29, 1997.

"Taxes are too high for too many" - Dalton McGuinty, speech to the Liberal Party of Canada, February 22, 1997.

"I think government should always reserve the right to raise taxes." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty said that as well.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Which way was the wind blowing?

Mr Baird: Which way was the wind blowing? the member asks. That is indeed the case.

As the member for Rainy River said, the Liberals can't have it both ways. When the clock strikes 6, we will know where the Liberals stand on these issues. I know some of their caucus colleagues want to know where they stand.

I have an

article here from the Hamilton Spectator back a few years ago:

"Outside the meetings, some Liberals expressed concerns the party will be handicapped in opposition by a campaign platform that advocated many of the things the Tories are now doing.

"`We are all signing from the same song sheet,' said rookie member Sandra Pupatello of Windsor. `How can we go in guns blazing when we would have been doing the same things?'"

This is the Liberal member for Windsor-Sandwich saying this.

"Mike Colle, a member of the west Toronto riding of Oakwood, said his party strayed too far to the right in opposing the NDP and should return to its left-of-centre roots. `I don't want to be part of the mushy middle any more.'"

I know Mike Colle believed that when he said it.

But they aren't alone. In the Toronto Star, Friday, September 8, 1995, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, the member for Windsor-Sandwich's colleague and my good friend, said, "We've been far too fuzzy for far too long." He went on to say, "We're going to have to some day decide what we stand for and then stand for it. We have some serious navel gazing to do."

I agreed with the member for Windsor-Walkerville when he said that back not too many years ago.

The Liberal Party has got to come clear on this. They've got to come to the table and tell us where they stand, how they would pay for their risky fiscal framework.

The member for Hamilton Centre said in debate here last week that Dalton McGuinty has stopped saying he'll increase health and education spending. Now he's starting to talk about building walls around those funding envelopes. They can't have it both ways. They've got to come clean with the people of Ontario.

The New Democratic Party is at least being honest. They disagree with the tax cut. They want to increase spending in the government and they're going to tell the people of Ontario exactly how they would do it. It's time the Liberal Party went on the record and said the same thing.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for York South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning government cutbacks in emergency room funding. This matter will be debated at 6 o'clock today.

Further debate? The member for Kenora.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): What we've seen here is certainly what we call government by public relations gimmicks. We've seen this throughout northern Ontario, throughout northwestern Ontario; we've actually seen it throughout the entire province.

I cannot think of a better example than seeing the Premier, after I asked him a question in the House regarding his trip to Ear Falls, get up there and make an announcement that they'd been waiting months for in terms of keeping their clinic open. On the great day the Premier arrived in Ear Falls, he said, yes, there will be $300,000 a year to keep the clinic in Ear Falls open, a clinic which was needed for the health care services of the residents of Ear Falls and that area. What we found out and what we've been talking about in the last six or seven days is that it was nothing but a photo op. There was no money that went along with this announcement.

Today, we finally get it from the Premier that the money will flow into Ear Falls. But up until this time, it was only a photo op, with the Premier up there having to say something positive. He actually said it, but after much debate and much questioning in the House - I indicated at one point that it was really unusual. I'd never, ever seen in the history of this province a Premier go into a community such as Ear Falls, that size, make this fantastic announcement, and then nothing happened for over 135 days. Nothing went into that area at all.

Madam Speaker, you'll know that I've raised as well the issue of our psychiatric patients ending up in jail cells in this province, something that most people would think would be unheard of in Ontario today, one of the greatest provinces in one of the greatest countries in the world to live in. We have patients, health care psychiatric patients, ending up in jail cells. This happens.

If you run into a psychiatric problem in northwestern Ontario after 5 o'clock on a weekday or before 9 o'clock on a weekday, or on a weekend, instead of getting the psychiatric services you need in a hospital, you end up in a jail cell. Again, I've brought that problem to the minister's attention many times, to the Premier's attention. How can they allow that to happen in Ontario today?

This issue is actually increasing with time. Just the other day, October 19, yesterday, we have a letter directed to the superintendent of the jail. This is to the Kenora jail. The psychiatrists have written the jail to tell them that they will be unable to provide further psychiatric services to that jail. Let me just quote from that letter.

The psychiatrist goes on to write:

"I have made the ministry aware for some time that Kenora is significantly understaffed for" psychiatric services "and we need a significant commitment if we are to meet the needs of the district. To date, there has been no solution" - I repeat, no solution - "and we must impose strict limits on what we are able to accomplish, given the above.

"To that end, we are unable to provide psychiatric assessments at the jail other than for patients whom we have previously followed. I sincerely regret having to make this decision, but we have little option at this time.

"Should you have any specific concerns, please address them to the Ministry of Health, as the solution to this dilemma is solely within their domain."

That's signed by Dr Watler, a psychiatrist at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital, telling the jail that he can no longer provide additional services to them; as I indicated earlier, where we have psychiatric patients in the province of Ontario ending up in jail cells.

I guess what we see in a number of cases is a government here that wants to run government and come up with solutions through ads. If they have a problem where a patient is waiting for a number of months and it's brought to their attention, what do they do? They come up with an ad, they come up with a gimmick and try to sell their programs to the people of Ontario. Let me tell this government, let me tell the Premier, the Minister of Health, the cabinet, it's not working in northwestern Ontario. When the money does not flow, the doctors are not there to provide the services we need.

I've spoken a number of times on the anaesthetists' services that we require in the Lake of the Woods District Hospital in Kenora in order that we can carry on with the surgery program. At the present time, the government is dragging four of our GPs through what they would like to call negotiations. The four GPs who are being dragged through these are threatening to remove services. That would mean there would be no more operations in that hospital, that they would have to take surgery off the books. That means that anybody having a possible problem with a delivery would have to go to another facility.

Again we're finding that the other facilities are saying: "No, we can't accept these patients because we are overburdened. We're not going to accept these patients." All the government has to do is sit down to meaningful negotiations with those four GPs and work out a solution. That's all we're asking. The GPs are telling me that no one from the government is sitting there working with them to find a solution to this problem, a government that has just no interest in working out solutions. They seem to want to bring people on and create animosity between groups.

They've done it with the teachers, we've seen it with the nurses, now we're seeing it with our doctors, some of our most important people, people whom we in northwestern Ontario depend on.

People who are going to be moving into our communities will be looking and finding out whether we have those services when they actually want to come into northwestern Ontario and work. Another gimmick that