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

November 27, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L030 - Mon 27 Nov 1995 / Lun 27 Nov 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

DOWNTOWN FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ISADORE AND BELLE BLACK

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

PEN CENTRE

VISITORS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

TAX REDUCTION

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

TOURISM RESERVATION NETWORK

BUS TRANSPORTATION

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTURING

BUS TRANSPORTATION

ALFRED COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD TECHNOLOGY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

JUSTICE SYSTEM

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

VISITOR

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

CHILD CARE

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

TAX REDUCTION

CHILD CARE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CHILD CARE

PRIVATIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT AND DEBT

EDUCATION FINANCING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CHILD CARE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): According to a recent Environics Research Group poll, a majority of Ontarians believe that health care should be a high priority for government spending. Nearly three quarters of Ontarians do not support health care cuts.

When will Mike Harris realize that Ontarians deeply value their health care system and wish it improved, not destroyed by his government's senseless Common Sense Revolution? For how long will he continue to assume that he knows what's best for us?

This government is making it a point to antagonize as many people as it possibly can, with the exception of course of its special supporters who eagerly await their 30% tax cut. Now it has targeted the medical community in its own arbitrary and unilateral way.

Mike Harris rejects traditional government thinking. However, traditional and democratic values such as consultation and respect for different views have been, up until recently, an integral part of Ontario politics.

It is high time that this government took its ideological blinders off. Its narrow views and ill-conceived policies are threatening to destroy one of Ontario's most cherished treasures: a health care system that is considered one of the best in the world. Ontarians are talking. Is anyone in this government listening?

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today, I rise in the House to express my party's support for the White Ribbon Campaign which began Saturday, November 25, and runs until December 2.

The White Ribbon Campaign is the largest effort in the world of men and boys working to end violence against women. The campaign began in 1991 here in Canada and has spread to Australia, the United States and Norway.

The white ribbon is a symbol of our deep concern with violence against women. Wearing a white ribbon is a personal pledge never to commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women.

I think it is particularly important for us to be recognizing this campaign at a time when this government is imposing cuts and endangering essential services to survivors of violence and anti-violence education programs, and I hope the government reconsiders some of its positions to date on this score.

While in government, the NDP recognized the importance of programs in its effort to end violence against women. To this effect, the NDP doubled spending on violence against women and maintained the commitment in the face of very tough fiscal circumstances. We established core funding for women's centres, increased funding for women's shelters, expanded funding for rape crisis centres and created new sexual assault treatment centres.

The main focus of this year's White Ribbon week will be in schools across the country. It is important to discuss the problem of violence in our society and to invite young people to talk about ways to build healthy relationships.

Men must speak out and challenge other men who use violence in their relationship with women. The problem does not stop with physical violence. There are other forms of violence that also need to be dealt with. I would like to remind the members of the House and the public that violence against women is a year-round problem and needs to go beyond this week.

DOWNTOWN FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I rise today to pay tribute to people like George Shaw of Sarnia and the Lambton Seniors Association. They are behind the Downtown Friendship Circle which is sponsored by eight different churches. It brings a full-course meal and entertainment twice a week, for a small fee and without any government subsidy, to Sarnia seniors who live alone.

I am proud to live in a community that has produced such caring volunteers. I am making this statement because these people deserve to be recognized. They have brought laughter and health to countless seniors. They are true heroes. By reaching out their hands they have helped to build a community of friends. It's my hope that more people become aware of this group, that more people come forward to help, that more seniors take advantage of it.

Sarnia is a big city, but it has never lost its small-town atmosphere because of charitable groups like the friendship circle. It's that spirit of generosity and volunteerism that unites our community, a great community, and that needs to be promoted across the province: people helping people.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Ontario seniors will find themselves on the receiving end of another Harris Conservative broken promise when the government brings in its economic statement.

As the Minister of Health finalizes plans to charge seniors a new user fee, called a copayment, for medically necessary drugs, drugs prescribed by their doctors, not just one but two key Conservative election promises are being broken.

Remember the promise contained on page 6 of the Common Sense Revolution? "No new user fees." This is a vow Mike Harris repeated at every campaign stop; and the second promise, the one on page 10, "Aid for seniors will not be cut."

These two promises, along with the already broken promise not to cut health care, were key to the Conservative election victory. These promises were used time and again to reassure Ontarians that Conservatives weren't the cold-hearted, mean-spirited, American-worshipping right-wingers that everyone was worried they were.

Obviously, these promises were not worth the paper they were written on and Ontarians are now seeing the Mike Harris real Conservative Party, a party that can only relate to the concerns of big business, a party that demands that children, the disabled and ailing seniors are the ones who must bear the brunt of the Conservative ideological stupidity.

How can the Conservatives expect anyone to trust them when they so quickly betray their commitments made to senior citizens --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The time has expired.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to speak about a growing concern in our province that I am seeing first hand in my own community every weekend.

It is the concern being raised by those in the field of caring for the poor, who are increasingly seeing their resources diminish while demand grows. I, like you, realize how important it is that communities respond as they always have to crisis when it occurs, and we encourage that, but when the crisis is being imposed in a systematic way by decisions made by government, it worries me to no end.

The numbers of people attending the local soup kitchen is up by 10%. The list of families applying to the Christmas Cheer Depot has doubled. A local blue box recycling collection firm this past weekend collected over six tons of food in preparation for what is anticipated to be a tough winter for a lot of people.

These are all very troubling signs and doubly troubling when we know this situation does not have to be as difficult as it is.

We have a government now at Queen's Park that actually thinks the poor have too much and the rich do not have enough and are bound and determined to fix that situation even if it means creating a crisis.

I urge the government to do the right thing, to do the moral thing, to do the just thing and make every effort to ensure that the poor and the marginalized have what they need of the basics for life without having to go begging for them. Will they do that, please?

ISADORE AND BELLE BLACK

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in this House today to pay tribute to two very remarkable people in my riding. Isadore and Belle Black have been pillars of the community in the area of volunteerism.

The Blacks have also been strong supporters of one of the world's leading centres for the study of Torah, the Jewish religious text. The centre is known as Ponevez Yeshiva. On November 19, 1995, Isadore and Belle Black were honoured with the prestigious Distinguished Founders' Award at the 55th anniversary rededication dinner of Ponevez in New York City. This marks only the second time Canadians have been honoured with this award.

Isadore has been involved with many groups and organizations over the years. He was president of the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, founding member of Trent University's board of governors, president of the Eastern Canadian Council of B'nai Brith, involved with the Peterborough Senior Citizens Council, the Prince of Wales Public School breakfast club, the Rotary Club, the YMCA and was named Peterborough Citizen of the Year in 1990.

Isadore and Belle Black possess the qualities that make a community strong and vibrant. It is my pleasure to stand here and congratulate them for their prestigious award. They are a tribute to their faith and a tribute to their community.

On behalf of the riding of Peterborough, I wish to extend my deep and sincere congratulations for receiving what is truly a very special award.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Last week, I presented a petition, signed by over 4,000 individuals, against the repeal of the Public Libraries Act. Today, I have in this box over 2,000 individual petition cards, signed, that I would like to present to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation on behalf of my constituents. Each one of them reads as follows:

"I support free public libraries as the foundation of a literate, informed and prosperous population. I am therefore opposed to the repeal of the Public Libraries Act, the elimination of provincial, conditional grants to public libraries, the eradication of library boards and the imposition of fees for the use of public libraries."

My constituents are very alarmed with statements made by the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, as well as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that suggest the provincial government intends to repeal the Public Libraries Act in order to impose fees for the use of public libraries.

They believe that taxation is the fairest means of charging Ontarians for library services and that an annual user fee for services will stop those in the community who need access to library programs and services most: preschool and school-aged children, job seekers and those needing information to retrain for a changing world.

This is another attack on the most vulnerable in our society, much like the cuts in social services, cuts to the disabled and cuts to services for senior citizens. Public libraries make an important contribution to the ongoing strength and quality of life in Ontario.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Last Friday, I had the opportunity to sit on the standing committee on general government, where we heard deputations from a number of people in regard to Bill 8.

What I'd like to inform the House today, through this statement, is of one of the comments made by the presentation of the Union of Injured Workers of Ontario, specifically Carol McGregor and John McKinnon, who had related through the committee that they had been trying to get in to meet with the minister responsible for reforms to the WCB, Mr Jackson, in order to be able to share with him their views in regard to some of the changes that might be needed at the WCB, and at the same time share some of their opinions overall on how the WCB operates.

What those deputation people said was shocking. They said that the minister would not meet with them, would not physically meet with them until after the interim report on WCB, that he's about to issue, had been issued. That sounds to me like inverted consultation. The whole idea of a government is to listen to people before the actual change is made.

This government is acting out its revolution, a revolution supposedly of common sense. First of all, there's no common sense to being so ideologically driven that you refuse the advice and help from people who may know something about something that you need to do. This action is not only undemocratic; it doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, history has taught us something: that without exception people get hurt in revolutions. This revolution in common sense is no different. People will get hurt, as people in every revolution have been hurt over the years.

PEN CENTRE

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Ontario is definitely open for business. On Tuesday evening, November 21, 1995, I took

part in the grand opening of the expansion and redevelopment of St Catharines's Pen Centre.

The remodelling and transformation of Pen Centre mall has been an enormous undertaking. Originally built in 1957 as a single plaza, it has grown and changed over the years, and its motto, "The Evolution of a Tradition," certainly fits.

I spoke at the ceremony on behalf of the province. I congratulated the many small businesses, both new and old to the mall. The expansion and redevelopment has meant over 1,000 new retail jobs. In fact, there is now an employment base in the mall of 3,000 jobs. That is the kind of news this government wants to hear and to encourage.

The Ontario Pension Board, which invested $40 million in this project, and 20 Vic Management had a vision and confidence in Ontario. The results of that vision and confidence are what I saw on Tuesday evening at the opening. The mall was packed with dignitaries, well-wishers, shoppers and all those hundreds of men and women who are employed in many stores and services.

The opening of the transformed Pen Centre sends a message that Ontario is open for business. Our revolution has definitely begun.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Ms Marianne Cerilli, MLA, from the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, and Ms Lois Moorcroft, MLA from the Yukon Legislative Assembly. Welcome.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): On Thursday, the member for Dovercourt (Mr Silipo) raised a point of order with respect to a question which sought additional information to a previously asked question.

I would say to the member for Dovercourt that while the minister may certainly have used another proceeding by which to deliver additional information, there is nothing in our rules or practice which prevents any member from asking a question that seeks to follow up on information provided in previous answers. Indeed, in reviewing Hansard, I find that this is a very common occurrence.

In response to the additional point raised by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke) I would like to quote from Speaker Warner's ruling of June 3, 1992, in which he said:

"Members will appreciate that our rules have changed since 1970 and one of the effects of these many changes is that the Speaker must now give more latitude to members in the subject matter of their questions for the very simple reason that he has no occasion to vet these questions in advance. I must say that this applies to both sides of the House, and therefore I can only repeat that while I try to be vigilant, I cannot apply standards of questioning to the government members that I do not apply to the opposition members...."

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): It is my pleasure today, as Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, to announce the launch of an initiative in the Ontario public service that will reduce our internal administrative costs by 33% over the next two years.

At a time when the government is asking its transfer partners and other organizations that receive public funding to reduce spending, it is imperative that we show leadership by creating a smaller public service that is more effective, efficient, less costly and focused on providing services that are essential to the public.

This initiative demonstrates that we are taking our leadership role seriously.

The measures I am announcing today take in the entire Ontario public service.

This program also illustrates our commitment to cost-effectiveness within our own organization. Efficiency begins at home.

The level of savings we are targeting is achievable. We have looked at the experiences of major corporations which have undergone substantial restructuring. We are confident that our goal of cutting the cost of running the government by 33% is consistent with similar reviews of their business practices.

To achieve these savings, we will reassess a wide range of internal services such as purchasing, accounting, payroll and information technology.

We will do this through a process that includes determining what core internal administrative services the government needs to support its business; eliminating those services that do not support our core responsibilities; looking at a range of options for service delivery, including partnerships with the private sector; making services and processes simpler and more effective through streamlining and eliminating duplication; introducing common standards for most government-wide services and information technology systems; and measuring the performance of services and the people who deliver them.

For example, the government expects to find immediate savings over the next few months by streamlining the process for purchasing and paying for low-cost items so that the processing volume will be reduced by up to 50%. In the area of information technology, $12 million will be saved by April 1998 through the consolidation of existing leases for some hardware and software products.

We currently have an administrative budget of $900 million for a $54-billion organization. By reducing the costs of our internal administration, we will cut our budget by $300 million over the next two years. By reducing internal administrative costs, we will ensure that tax dollars are going where they will give the most value to the public: by providing important public services.

In the spring I will update the House on our progress and provide details about the savings we have achieved.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I am convinced that the Chair of Management Board has a dictionary of buzzwords, because that's what this statement reads like: nothing but buzzwords about how to make things more efficient. All the correct phrasing is there.

I'm sure there isn't anyone who would oppose making things more efficient in the workings of government. I'm sure everyone in this House would agree that that's the appropriate thing to do. Certainly, over the course of time he speaks to, this is achievable.

The question is, what are the specifics? No mention of cuts to the civil service; no mention of the number of job losses; no mention of what the impacts will be for those people in the civil service who face the prospect of being laid off. But certainly that is uppermost in the minds of a great many people. How do you achieve greater efficiencies without cutting to the bone, as the minister is wont to say?

When all is said and done, he's tinkering with the administrative workings of the bureaucracy. I say again that we all agree that the efficiencies are necessary. But what is he really going to do? He has not described that here today. What are the details around the cuts to the civil service?

Furthermore, yes, this is an internal administrative initiative, but the real heart of the matter lies with the quasi-public transfer partners, the recipients of those funds. I ask the minister, why hasn't his government moved to make the amendments necessary to the public Audit Act so the auditor could go in and audit some of these transfer recipients to determine some real savings? After all, his Finance minister will be making a statement next week with regard to the big cuts that are coming, and no one seems to really know how effective or efficient the streamlining of those quasi-public institutions will be. I think the big savings to come might be in those areas.

However, we have no roadmap here to guide us. When the minister talks about the administrative initiatives he's undertaking, that's tinkering at the edges. The real stuff is yet to happen, and when it happens we want to know what this government is going to do, what model they'll be following in terms of streamlining those quasi-public institutions: municipalities, universities, hospitals. They are going to be very much affected by what this government does with respect to the economic statement on November 29.

I wonder if there's a real roadmap there, or is it just cuts right across the board without any consideration of the impacts? How do you really get those sectors working more efficiently? How do you restructure the government to make it actually work? How do you restructure those quasi-public institutions to actually deliver greater services with fewer dollars?

That's the real question, and that's what I want to see from the minister: some initiative with respect to cuts and a restructuring and reorganization to make those sectors work more efficiently. After all, 70% of the dollars that flow into the provincial government go out in transfer payments, so we're talking about a huge amount of money, as everyone knows in this House. But the minister has not detailed a roadmap or a guide or a model to be followed with respect to those cuts.

I say this is a bit of camouflage, if you would. We're talking about internal initiatives here, which I think everyone agrees with, but they're small by comparison to what's about to happen with the next economic statement. That's where the big stuff will happen. People out there want to know, Minister, what the impact of those cuts will be, and no one on your side is standing up to tell them. We'll find out in a few days, I'm sure, but the real effects of those cuts will be felt over the coming months, and that is something that concerns a great many people.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I don't think there's much doubt that we're seeing absolutely fundamental change with this government. You do have a majority and you can push it through, but I will just say to you that the people of Ontario will demand that there's a debate around these fundamental issues: changing core service, privatizing, reducing the public service by a dramatic amount. All these things you have the mandate to proceed with, but we should have the opportunity for debate.

No budget, for the first time in the history of the province -- we have a one and a half page document talking about fundamental change. We demand a legitimate debate around issues like this.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): We on this side of the House and in this party have no difficulty with the government finding efficiencies. As a matter of fact, we did a fair amount of it ourselves when we were government. However, some of the premise upon which we based what we did in the name of balancing our situation was to save jobs, protect services and make sure that those who are least able to defend themselves were looked after.

What concerns me today about the statement made by the Chair of Management Board and this government are the underlying assumptions behind all of what they do as government these days.

They are saying, by the things they're doing and by what they're announcing here today, that government is not important, that the services government delivers are not important and, even more troubling, that the people who deliver those services are not valuable, do not contribute in some important way to the fabric of this province and the communities in which they live.

They say to us that government has no real role to play in modern society and that government does not play a

part in the ongoing economic viability of our province or our jurisdiction; that somehow, if government gets out of the way, the private sector is just waiting to take advantage of all this excess resource once government has backed away. We know on this side of the House what that means. We know who that helps out and who begins to participate.

On this side of the House we believe that government is important, that government has an important role to play in the life of this province and that services are important to people, and that they get them on time and in a first-class fashion is really important. We know on this side of the House that the people who deliver those services are valuable players in the life of this province and in the economy of the province and are invaluable in the communities we all live in, particularly the smaller communities.

In a modern society, government is an important partner or player in every aspect of communities, particularly as a fundamental determinant of economic activity. When you cut expenditures you cut revenue, and when you cut revenue you have job loss, so government is an important part of any economy.

My question for the minister today, and it's a question that many people across this province and in my community are asking, is, at what point does all this become counterproductive? At what point does it become impossible, given even the brightest economic forecast, for the private sector to replace these jobs and services? Do you know or do you have benchmarks to tell you when your ideologically driven agenda of cuts to jobs and services begins to do irretrievable damage to both the social and economic fabric of this province?

When you put together what you're doing by way of downsizing in the public service, what you're not doing out there by way of stimulation to the economy and creating jobs, and what you're doing to the organized labour movement of this province that has contributed so significantly over the last four or five years to the economic health and wellbeing of this province and the ever-so-fragile recovery that was happening, I have to say to the Chair of Management Board that I am really concerned. I speak today with all sincerity on behalf of all those people I represent in Sault Ste Marie and whom we in this party represent in every community across this province.

I'm sure if you talk off the record with some of your own members, they'll tell you that they're concerned as well, because what you're doing here is hurting people. You're hurting the people who deliver services for this government, who have worked so hard over so many years to develop their talent and their ability, you're hurting the people they deliver the services to, and, even more importantly, from the stuff we've seen so far that indicates the direction of this government, you're hurting those who are least able to accept the hurt: the vulnerable and the marginalized and the children of this province.

I ask you today to stop, to take a second sober look, to be open to the contribution we might make in this discussion you're having, and to listen to the people of this province before you do any more damage.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question again is for the Minister of Health. Minister, last Tuesday I asked you to define the term "stable funding." You said you define stable funding for the transfer partners, in your case being hospitals, as being predictable, and you added, "We didn't say anything about the level of transfers."

I want to take you back, Minister, to the Toronto Star's debate on the greater Toronto area last April 5. On that occasion your leader, now the Premier, Michael Harris, was happy to talk about the level of transfers. He defined stable funding for the transfer partners by saying: "That means flat-line for the next four years. I hope we can do better than that."

I see a significant difference between those two statements. It's clear that before the election Mike Harris said stable funding means freezing transfer payments to hospitals and maybe even increasing them a little bit, doing a little bit better than that. Now that the election is over, you appear to be saying something totally different. Minister, does this mean you are going to contradict your leader's statements, and does that mean you are planning to reduce hospital transfers in this week's economic and fiscal statement?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member is correct in some of her research. I recall talking to the Ontario Hospital Association perhaps 18 months or two years ago before then leader Mike Harris, now the Premier, and advising him that perhaps we could have flat-line hospital budgets. I knew nothing of the detail and the levels of dollars that would be required for the 30 restructuring projects which will be in in the next few weeks.

It is clear within the envelope of hospitals that we're going to have to look at some dollars on the operating side and reinvest them into priming the pump to get going on these restructurings. You know we have Windsor on hold as a result of trying to find the capital dollars to move ahead with that restructuring; Sudbury needs money; and of course Metro Toronto is going to need money.

Our commitment with respect to the overall health care envelope remains firm. However, we did say in opposition, and we've said again since coming to government, that within the health care envelope there will be some moving around of dollars, and you may or may not see that in the economic statement coming up with respect to hospitals.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier, when he was speaking last April 5, said that stable funding would mean flat-line funding to hospitals for the next four years. Minister, we've been told that you are planning to reduce hospital transfers by the following amounts: 2% in the coming fiscal year, 5% the next year and 10% the year after that, a total of more than 17% over three years. That amounts to more than $1 billion in cuts to hospitals over the course of the next three years. I want to remind you that these are cuts to hospitals, one of the primary providers of health care to the people of this province.

I believe that cuts of this magnitude to hospitals would mean more hospital bed closings, not because of duplication but in order to pay for that income tax cut that benefits the wealthiest people in this province. I believe cuts of this magnitude would mean fewer nurses, longer waiting lists for surgery, reduced emergency room services, reduced services for people in smaller communities across the province.

Is this indeed your plan? Is your definition of "stable funding" this 2%, 5% and 10% cut to hospitals? Is your plan to violate every promise made by you and your leader during the election campaign?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm perplexed by the question, given that I've spent a great deal of time talking with officials in the Ontario Hospital Association. This morning, we had some 40 officials in my office, and every single one of them understands what has to be done in the hospital sector. If we move ahead on restructuring, dollars are going to come out of the hospital side of the ledger. We've already said we will move ahead on restructuring, and any figures that may be contained in the financial statement will mirror what we intend to do on the restructuring side.

Hospital administrators have very clearly said to me that they're prepared to allow some movement of dollars so we can get started on the capital side with respect to these restructuring projects. They're eager to get moving with restructurings and other investments.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Oh, yeah.

Hon Mr Wilson: No, I want to say to the honourable members, their attitudes are far more positive than yours. They live in the real world, they understand our debt and deficit problems and they understand that we need to get moving with one of the largest restructurings of a hospital system that's ever been attempted in North America. That requires dollars up front, and everybody across the way needs dollars in their communities on the capital side to go ahead with the restructuring. We're having those discussions with our hospital partners, and they fully understand what might have to be done.

Mrs McLeod: I would be very surprised if a single one of the people with whom the minister is consulting believed the hospitals across this province could cope with that level of cuts, with the minister taking those dollars, any amount of those dollars, to pay for that income tax cut his government is planning to bring in next spring.

I bring you back, Minister, to the commitments that were made by your leader, by your party and I believe by you personally that there would be no cuts to health care and no cuts to hospitals, not one single penny, not this year, not next year, not the year after that and not the year after that. Now you are looking at immediate cuts to health care, to hospitals, in order to help pay for that income tax cut. That kind of cut will fly directly in the face of the commitments you have made and directly in the face of what the people of this province expect from your government.

You will be aware of the survey that was conducted by the Ontario Hospital Association that indicates that eight out of 10 people in this province would be willing to forgo the income tax cut in order to protect their health care services from being cut. In Alberta, even your mentor Ralph Klein has realized that cuts to hospital services are not acceptable.

I just ask you again, will you keep that very clear election commitment? Will you freeze transfer payments to hospitals, as your leader said you would?

Hon Mr Wilson: I appreciate the question from the honourable member. I would ask the honourable member what advice she would give this government, given that we're just a few months away from the first billion-dollar cut from the federal Liberal government. A responsible government in Ontario would do what we are doing, and that is getting our own books in order and preparing our programs, including hospitals, for a $1-billion cut coming in the name of a health and social transfer from the federal government. And that's only the first billion-dollar cut. A few months after that, there'll be another billion-dollar cut.

I and my colleagues in cabinet and the members of our government have been very responsible in saying all the way along that there's only one taxpayer. We're going to bite the bullet here in Ontario, get our programs so that they're sustainable and affordable, and not point fingers at the federal government.

We recognize, which the honourable member seems to forget, that there are some huge cuts coming on our shoulders, and we have to prepare our programs, including hospitals, so that we can have quality and accessible health care across this province, now and in the future, and that's what we intend to do.

Mrs McLeod: Since the minister asked my advice, it's very simple. It is to do what the Premier said he was going to do when it comes to health care.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. According to the Canadian Press, the Minister of Community and Social Services has admitted to yet another mistake. He has admitted, apparently, that his cuts to women's shelters were not the best way to go. We have been pointing this out to the minister for some time now. We understand why this was a mistake and we understand what those cuts have meant for battered women and their children.

Minister, we are interested in hearing today why you now think it was a mistake. Would you please outline for this House what specifically in your view was wrong with the cuts and exactly what it is you now think should be fixed?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, what I did say was that cuts across the board aren't necessarily the best way to go, and I recognize that. But I also said at the time that the reason why we had to do these types of very dramatic cuts in July -- this was a result of the extra $1.9 billion deficit we inherited from the previous government. I made that very clear when I said that. That's what I was saying.

In fact, what we are doing now, in my ministry particularly, is we're looking at more of a consultative process, so we can make sure that people who are the care providers, the families that are affected by any of these areas, do have some direct input into government decisions.

Mrs McLeod: I guess it was just convenient for the minister to say that across-the-board cuts are the wrong way to go, right after emerging from a meeting with the interval and transition house representatives, who would have had some reason then to believe that what the minister was going to review was the specific cuts to their program. Perhaps the minister is saying that was not what he intended to convey at all, that he is committed to the cuts to women's shelters and to second-stage housing, and that those cuts are not going to be reviewed.

I wonder if he would then be able to help us understand what this advisory committee is going to do that he has apparently set up to look at the damage that his cuts have done and hopefully to undo the damage that those cuts have done, because, Minister, our concern is that you didn't do any consultation first. You cut first, you talked to people like the interval and transition house people later and you didn't seem to care about the impact of your cuts.

That impact is now being felt by women in shelters across this province who have no idea where they're going to go next. It's being felt by children who don't feel they have a secure home and by families who need a secure place where they can go to start rebuilding their lives.

Minister, I was hoping that you had finally seen the light and finally understood, after your meeting on Thursday, what your cuts are doing to women and children in this province.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mrs McLeod: I would like to know: If that is the case, since you made your statement right after meeting with them, what action are you going to take specifically on cuts to women's shelters and second-stage housing in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Evidently the Leader of the Opposition is also providing me with the answer, because she started off her question with exactly what we're doing.

We have struck some committees to look in terms of how we're going to define our services and our structure. I've clearly said this before in the House. This is no surprise to anybody else. In fact, it is almost like a friendly question, because I get a chance to actually answer it again.

One of the things we are looking at though -- and we're looking not just in this particular area; I think this is unique, certainly in this province -- is we're looking to make sure that various ministries do not work in silos, that we don't have duplication of programs between various ministries. We're trying to become more efficient. It's about time the government started looking at ways to make government more efficient for a change, rather than just looking out in the community, which is what we're doing.

Mrs McLeod: I would love to be able to give the minister an answer on what I think he should do about cuts to services for battered women in this province. I would love to think that this minister would stop making mistakes when it comes to the impact of his cuts on the people who are affected.

Minister, we all know that you know how to make mistakes. We so clearly remember the regulation which you said was just a drafting error, and we know that you fixed that one. We've known that you're prepared to admit to some mistakes. I was hoping this was a mistake that you were prepared to admit to and that you would fix. We know you admitted that you broke the promise to let people earn back their welfare cut, and you said you were going to fix that. We're still waiting for that.

Surely, that is the next step: to recognize the mistake and then to fix it. What I really want to know today is what you're going to do to fix this problem, because it's not a theoretical problem. Those cuts have had an impact that endangers the lives of women and children in this province. You have said that across-the-board cuts were not the way to go. Will you look at this specific cut? Will you take steps to undo the damage of this cut and how long will it be before you take action?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I have a position most of the time. At least I have a position, as opposed to several positions that the Leader of the Opposition has had over a period of time. At least we know where government stands on ideas because, quite frankly, we still can't figure out where you're standing over there across the House.

I've said this before: Clearly, we're entering into a consultative process. I think that's a good way to go. I've also indicated that we're going to look at ministries, making sure that we're more efficient across the board, and we're also looking at ways to make the bureaucracy more efficient as well. These are steps that clearly the other governments should have done in the previous 10 years, which they failed to do and of course which made the problem we've inherited from them far greater than it should have been.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): In the absence of the Minister of Finance and in the absence of the Premier, my question will have to go to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

We've been doing some work, as has the Dominion Bond Rating Service and as have a number of other commentators and advisers, on the full impact of the cost of the proposed 30% tax cut to which the Premier has recently recommitted the government. Most observers think that by the time the tax cut is fully implemented in 1998-99, the full impact will be close to $7 billion, and by the end of the decade the full impact will be well over $7 billion annually in lost revenue to the province.

I wonder why the minister would think that this was such a good idea, since the government has stated so categorically it's a bad idea for the government to be borrowing to pay for job creation. If it's a bad idea to pay for job creation by borrowing, why is it such a good idea to pay for a $7-billion tax cut by borrowing?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm pleased to say that I really support the 30% tax cut. It was a commitment we made during the campaign. It is a 30% cut in personal tax rates. It puts money into circulation, which is what needs to happen in this province. People in this province have not had a pay increase for about five years, about the same turn that this government was in office. It's the first time that they are going to have a break and they will put money into circulation. It will create jobs, and we're quite confident that at the end of our five-year period we will have created 725,000 new jobs.

Mr Rae: There are 20,000 tax filers who make over $250,000 a year. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade is quite right if he's saying that those people have received significant increases in their salaries and wages in the last five years. They have; ordinary working people have not. The average taxpayer with an income of over $250,000, by the time this 30% tax break is fully implemented, would get a tax break of $26,600 each year. The typical Ontario millionaire will get a tax break of over $50,000, and someone who, as a CEO, earns an income of $2 million or more would get an annual tax break of over $100,000.

I would like to ask the minister why the government is choosing the least progressive means of dealing with the problem of low pay, of people who have had to suffer because of the recession? Why would you be targeting the people who have the greatest incomes for the greatest tax cut rather than looking at the people who have the least money?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I think the leader of the third party did not read his copy of the Common Sense Revolution very carefully. In the Common Sense Revolution, there's something he forgot, and that is the fair share health tax levy, which will be attached to everybody's income over $50,000, at the rate of about, I think, 2%.

All I can say is that I think the figures he has quoted today would be very much adjusted downwards as far as benefits are concerned for people in that category. I invite him to go back and do his homework again.

Mr Rae: I can assure the honourable member that, together with many other people, I've read this particular monstrosity of a fiscal bible with great care and read it over very carefully. We've tried to add up the numbers; we've also relied on the commentary by the Dominion Bond Rating Service. Obviously, a number of economists and a number of people are now starting to look much harder at the numbers which you're presenting.

But again, I want to ask the minister to come back to this. Perhaps the question is too direct, but it's a simple one. If it's wrong, which the government says, to borrow to build a subway, if it's wrong to borrow to build a hospital, if it's wrong to borrow to provide good health care, if it's wrong to borrow to do all those things -- because ever since you got here, we've heard nothing but how terrible it is to borrow to do those things -- I'm asking you a very simple question: If it's wrong to borrow to do those things, why is it right to borrow to give rich people a tax cut? Why is that right?

Hon Mr Saunderson: If the honourable member spent more than he earned, he'd be declared a bankrupt. If a company spends more than it earns, it ultimately goes bankrupt. These two parties over here spent us into a desperate situation so that our accumulated debt is now almost $100 billion. Technically speaking, they have made this province a bankrupt province. In five years we will no longer be a bankrupt company; we will be in a balanced budget position. I think that is what the people wanted and that's why they elected us.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mr Rae: I say to the same minister, we now have a declaration by the minister that the province is bankrupt and that's why they're declaring a $7-billion dividend to the wealthiest shareholders of the province. What a preposterous statement; what a hypocritical statement; what a statement that doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

The Speaker: I wonder if the honourable member would rephrase his choice of words.

Mr Rae: If I've said anything unparliamentary, I withdraw it, but I still feel the same sentiments. I would say to the --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Is this a question?

Mr Rae: It is a question. My question again to the minister is this: If you're saying now, as the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, that the province is bankrupt, why are you declaring a dividend for the wealthiest shareholders in the province, a dividend which is going to be worth $7 billion in three years' time? Why would you do that? Why would you do such a thing?

Hon Mr Saunderson: The Dominion Bond Rating Service I think has said it all by downgrading our credit at least two times in this government's time period. So I think we can just leave it at that. We appear, I say, to have been driven into a bankruptcy situation, which we're going to correct, and we will do it in five years' time.

Mr Rae: In case you wanted to know what it's equivalent to, $7 billion is equivalent to almost the total annual transfers to our hospitals; it's worth 823,000 training spaces to help get people back to work; it's the total provincial transfers for public schools, universities and colleges combined. That's what $7 billion is. The weakness in the entire Tory plan is that what they are doing is giving a $7-billion gift to the wealthiest citizens of the province at a time when we still have significant unemployment --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Rae: Would the minister please answer the question, once again, why is it good to borrow to give people a $7-billion tax cut when we know the impact that's going to have on the services in this province?

Hon Mr Saunderson: To get a good, long-term recovery, we need to have a tax reduction. Government spending that we went through in the last 10 years has been very good for creating short-term jobs, but if we want to create good, long-term jobs, a tax cut and an encouragement to business is what will create those jobs.

Mr Rae: This is a personal income tax cut. Whoever gets the income tax cut, the person making $1 million a year, the CEO who gets that is going to get a $50,000 tax break, and that person can do whatever he wants with it. He can, say, go down to Florida, he can buy a condo, he can sell it offshore, he can put it anywhere he wants.

Building a subway is not a short-term job. Creating good health care is not a short-term job. These are long-term jobs for the benefit of the people of the province. My question, once again -- perhaps I can rephrase it -- is this: How will a tax cut help us to build a single hospital or a single subway line for the future of this province? How will it possibly do that?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Over the last 10 years we have had 65 tax increases in this province, 33 from the previous government and 32 from the Liberal administration. We have now got about 50,000 fewer jobs in Ontario than when they started back in 1990. I could tell you, it is quite obvious that tax increases reduce jobs. We are going to give a tax cut and we will create jobs.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): How?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Because there will be money in people's hands. They will spend it on goods and services, and that will create the jobs. I know they don't like to hear all this news, but it is good news for Ontario. We will create the jobs.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr Minister, both inside this House and outside you have stated over the last two or three months that you will be cutting the grants and subsidies to municipalities severely, but on the other hand you'll be giving them a lot more autonomy than they currently have. I wonder if you could explain to this House, then, why it is that in the proposed changes to the Development Charges Act you are severely limiting municipalities as to what they can charge for in the future. Could you explain that, Minister?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the best of my knowledge, we haven't put anything on the table on development charges as of yet. We have indicated that we're going to review the act, that we're going to develop a new act in conjunction with consultations with AMO and the development industry. When we have that work done, we'll table it in the House.

Mr Gerretsen: In the media kit that you have provided everyone, it clearly states that Premier Harris stated, "The act must be returned to its original purpose of funding hard services," and he committed himself to work closely with municipalities to find cost savings.

How can you possibly say that you are not going to cut the services when the Premier, in his pre-election campaign, stated that he was only going to allow the Development Charges Act to charge for hard services? You know that right now other services are being charged for as well, which in effect will be downloaded on to municipalities in further municipal taxes. How do you explain that inconsistency, Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: That's quite a stretch to reach that conclusion, that we're downsizing because we're considering going back to having development charges apply to what they should apply to, and that's hard services.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Leach: Sure it does. If you want to create development -- if you're interested in adding $15,000 or $20,000 to the cost of a single-family home, then you go that way. I think there are other ways, but we are going to review it with AMO and we are going to review it with the builders and developers in this province. There have been no decisions made as of yet, but you're absolutely right: I personally feel that development charges should be on hard services.

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, today marks the start of the White Ribbon Campaign, which you may know is the campaign by men to end violence against women.

You might be interested to know that you have eliminated funding for programs to help men who want to end their violent behaviour. These are people who are desperately seeking assistance to end their violent behaviour. Some of these men in fact are in the programs by court order, yet your government doesn't pay for these men to attend these programs, so already these agencies are picking up some of the slack.

How do you rationalize eliminating the funding for these programs when we know that violence against women is a big problem in our society and these men are trying to do something about it?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Prior to our making some of the adjustments certainly in the transfer payments, we received some input back from some of the actual providers in these areas who really are questioning the effectiveness of the various programs. But what we do is we still continue to fund over $60 million in these areas. This is also part of the challenge which we are sending to the committees that are going to be dealing with this particular area of the government.

Ms Churley: I'm aware from looking across the floor over there that I don't see one of the men, of whom there are many in your caucus, wearing a white ribbon today. I wonder if you are even aware that this is the beginning of the White Ribbon Campaign.

Associations such as the Family Services Association of Metropolitan Toronto and the Catholic Family Services of Peel-Dufferin are going to do their best to continue the male batterers programs, but these programs will suffer, we know that, and your cuts are going to increase costs in other ways. More women will be in shelters and hospitals, more men in jail, more children witnessing abuse and running the risk of become abusers or abused themselves.

Minister, forget the moral imperative for a minute, just for now. Do you think that, just economically, cutting these programs at this time is worth the new costs that you are going to be creating? Is this common sense?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It is no surprise to anybody in the House that part of the challenge of what this government was left with is making some very difficult decisions, and I emphasize the part that they are difficult decisions. However, someone has to address the fiscal problem that we have. Clearly if we don't address this and clearly across the province people recognize that unless we address the fiscal problems we have right now in this province, there in fact will be no province any more.

With respect to the first remark, I have to say that as I look around the House there are various members from all the different parties who either wear symbols on their lapels or not. Certainly many of us, even looking back at Remembrance Day, were wearing poppies. But certainly this is not an indication of whether or not there's support for programs. Clearly the government does have this area as a priority of ours and we do think it's important, but we have to look at the overall picture as well, and that's clearly what we've been doing.

TOURISM RESERVATION NETWORK

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the ever-popular Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. I know the minister supports my constituents' desire to bring the tourism sector up to date in the field of global telecommunications. Could the minister inform the House if there has been any movement in the ministry's negotiations on a province-wide tourism reservation and information network agreement?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm very glad to have that question from the member for Niagara Falls, and I'd like to inform the House just what the status is on the province-wide tourism reservation network agreement.

The province-wide network would link tourism products with consumers through the 1-800 Ontario phone line with the capability of placing reservations for events, attractions and accommodations. The industry would pay for the network on an as-used basis. It would be owned, operated and financed by the private sector.

A tourism reservation and information network is very important because it will increase the competitiveness of the tourism sector. A number of competing jurisdictions have similar types of networks. This Bell-led consortium was the successful proponent from the ministry's requests for proposal competition, and the tourism division negotiating team has been negotiating throughout the summer and fall, and continues to negotiate with Bell in anticipation that an agreement can be reached.

Mr Maves: It's a very important subject to the people of my riding and I thank you for your answer. Could you inform us, though, when negotiations may be completed.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'd like to respond to the supplementary by the member for Niagara Falls. Negotiations are proceeding as expeditiously as possible. The issues are complex, I might add, both for the government and for Bell Canada. It is anticipated by all parties that an agreement can be in place for the new service prior to the coming spring tourism season in 1996.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, before you rush ahead with deregulation of the bus industry across Ontario, I wonder if you've considered one of the impacts that this rush to deregulation is going to bring about. That is that neighbouring provinces like Quebec have not deregulated, probably won't deregulate till 1999.

If you deregulate here in Ontario, what's to stop Quebec bus operators or Manitoba bus operators from coming into Ontario and taking business away from Ontario operators? What will you do to protect this type of unrestricted activity from happening here in Ontario?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to assure the honourable member that my staff and the ministry staff right now are consulting with the busing industry to ensure that an orderly deregulation is going to be taking place. The question that the honourable member has just asked me is exactly one of the reasons that we are going to take this thing slow, because we want to do the right thing. Before deregulation happens, we want to make sure that the province of Ontario business bus operators are protected.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): The people of northern Ontario, both bus operators and passengers, look at this deregulation as scary. They refer to it as scary. I have a bus owner-operator in the town of Kenora. She said she had "very serious consequences for our business," that this deregulation will have very serious consequences.

Minister, she's put a number of concerns to me, and let me put them to you. The markets are already saturated with bus companies. Safety will be compromised as fly-by-night operators use out-of-date and unsafe coaches. By their own admission, MTO inspectors are already unable to carry out all safety inspections. Most scheduled runs, such as the Excel daily to Red Lake and Fort Frances, will be discontinued, and with lower government-mandated costs just across the border -- and my colleague mentioned Manitoba -- northwestern Ontario is sure to be overrun by Manitoba-based bus companies.

Minister, have you given any consideration to these issues? How do you respond to Mrs Plaunte's concern? Would you please explain your plan to protect bus services to small, rural and northern communities?

Hon Mr Palladini: I appreciate my honourable colleague's concern about deregulation, but with regulation, small towns and communities across this great province of ours, over 400 towns, have lost busing services. The people who are saying that this is going to hurt or lose every bus service in small towns in Ontario do not know what they're saying, because that is not the case.

As far as safety standards are concerned, I think the honourable member also knows my commitment on safety with the safety plan that was just implemented. We have absolutely the fullest commitment to make sure that safety is not going to be compromised.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTURING

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the acting Premier. I'd like to ask the acting Premier whether he would commit the government to public hearings on legislation that will be coming out of this Wednesday's budget from the government, since the minister will understand that the omnibus bill that is going to the legislation and regulations committee of cabinet this evening for approval will be a major piece of legislation. Deregulation of the public sector will change fundamentally the way public business is done in this province. Would he not commit himself to public hearings on that legislation?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): To the member opposite, I think the appropriate response is, let's wait and see what the statement contains, let's wait and see what actions are required at that point. We don't have long to wait. The minister has indicated that on Wednesday afternoon at 4 o'clock the statement will be presented to the people of the province of Ontario. At that point I think it'll be apparent what action is required in terms of consultation.

Mr Cooke: We know that there is a major omnibus bill that is going to leg and regs tonight. We know from your Minister of Municipal Affairs and from other ministers that there are major deregulation sections to that bill that will fundamentally change the way the public sector is run. Whether it's school boards, whether it's municipalities, whether it's hospitals, it will change thing dramatically.

There was no discussion about this approach during the election. This is not something that was covered to any extent in the so-called Common Sense Revolution. If we're going to have major, dramatic changes in the way that the province functions, does the minister not believe that it's appropriate to have public hearings? Or are you going to do what seems to be communicated to us already by the House leader, and that is ram this bill through in two weeks, with no public hearings and no standing committee at all?

Hon David Johnson: The member for Windsor-Riverside is perhaps presuming what is going to be in the statement. I realize that there are various items that have been contained in the press. The Minister of Finance has indicated that yes, there will be implications, there's no question there will be implications, but I would remind the member for Windsor-Riverside that we did go through an election earlier this year and all of the parties did have platforms that were laid out.

I will say to the member that what will be contained in the minister's statement is highly consistent with the approach that this party has taken during the election period. That, I might say, is the greatest opportunity to meet with the people and to consult with the people. I think we've had an excellent consultation. The people have given us a mandate to proceed and, for once, a government is taking action on its promises.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It appears today is bus deregulation day in the House, because my question is also to the Minister of Transportation. Ontario bus operators are indeed preparing for deregulation of their industry, and I would like to indicate that many I have talked to intend to continue the service to areas where they now are, and indeed many of them will expand those services.

However, out-of-province operators have access to Ontario markets while Ontario operators are restricted in their markets, especially since deregulation in Quebec will not happen until 1999. Possibly the same question, or much the same, will cement in the minds of the bus operators what will happen in the next couple of months or the next couple of years.

Minister, can you assure us that after deregulation occurs in Ontario, Ontario operators will be given equal opportunity to compete in the marketplace and that out-of-province and out-of-country operators will not have an unfair advantage?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to thank my honourable colleague. As all members know, removing barriers and red tape is this government's commitment in the Common Sense Revolution. We believe that unnecessary regulation and red tape are significant barriers to growth and investment. I would like to assure my colleague that as far as foreign competition is concerned, my ministry staff and personal staff are right now consulting with the busing industry to ensure that an orderly transition will develop.

Mr Stewart: We're all very concerned about safety. I would ask the minister how he intends to ensure the safety of the travelling public after deregulation.

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to add, this deregulation is an economic deregulation only. I have no intention of allowing unsafe buses on Ontario roads. We are committed to road safety and will ensure that bus companies operate safely. A bill that I presented on shortline rail is tough on safety. I will do the same on busing.

ALFRED COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD TECHNOLOGY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, there are many rumours circulating in my riding that your government is planning to shut down the agricultural college in Alfred. As the minister knows, the Alfred College of Agriculture and Food Technology offers the only French-language diploma programs in agriculture in the province. It is not only an agricultural college, it is also a major agricultural research centre. I would like to know what your government's plans are for the future of the Alfred agricultural college.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague and neighbour for that question. I can assure him and all of the people who use le Collège d'Alfred that it is very much going to remain le Collège d'Alfred.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the minister without portfolio responsible for workers' compensation reform. Minister, I've been talking to workers across the province and they are extremely concerned and angry over the litany of cuts in benefits that you're going to make the WCB. One of the areas of course is the three-day waiting period.

As I understand what you're proposing, a firefighter in the province of Ontario who falls from a ladder while at home and breaks a leg would be entitled to sick pay coverage from that moment forward, but that same firefighter performing one of the most important public safety services in this province who is hurt in the line of duty would be penalized up to three days' pay because of your waiting period.

Minister, what possible justification can you have for punishing firefighters and other workers who become injured and disabled on the job through no fault of their own?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Workers' Compensation Board]): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question and I want to assure him that although there have been discussions about the concept of a three-day, five-day, one-day waiting period, that is not a firm decision that has been made; in fact, quite the contrary.

My colleague the Minister of Labour sought consultations, and I reviewed much of that literature, a lot of that response, and even though this has been considered or implemented in several other provinces in Canada, at this point I'm pleased to report to the House that it is not the case that this is something our government has already made a decision about and is prepared to proceed on. Quite the contrary -- it's something I'm looking at, but I'm aware of the kinds of concerns you've raised. The firefighters in this province have made them known to me as well.

Mr Christopherson: The evidence and the track record so far is that your government is not concerned about listening, given what you did with the anti-worker Bill 7, the way you rammed it through.

If indeed you're so interested in listening to workers, will you today commit to take whatever work it is you're doing -- which no one knows, as you've gone underground with it; when you killed the royal commission, you also killed the public input process -- to a province-wide public hearing process that allows everybody, not just your pals in the back room, to have a say in this most important legislation that affects working people and their ability to survive day by day? Will you commit to that public process here today?

Hon Mr Jackson: I'm surprised at the member opposite's suggestion. There can't be any issue that has been more consulted upon in the last eight years in this province. The previous Liberal government did some consultations; the leader of the third party undertook consultations. We have a body of information a mile wide for us to consider.

The real issue is, are we prepared to move in the direction that your government was prepared to move in with the royal commission, to look at models like they have in New Zealand, where we are going to transfer the liability from the workers' compensation on to the general public at large? Clearly, the Mike Harris government has said we're not moving in that direction.

We have an $11.4-billion unfunded liability, thanks to your government and the last decade of mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Board. The bottom line is that we're prepared to make the difficult and tough decisions to turn this situation around, to return it to an income replacement program as it was designed to be 80 years ago in this province, and to make sure those reforms are done with balance and consultation with workers who are looking for future jobs in this province. That's the focus of the Mike Harris government, and you'd better be ready for it.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, last week you indicated that you would advise the House of whether there will be a review of the police investigation of the OPP officer who was recently found not guilty for failing to remain at the scene of an accident in connection with the death of a 16-year-old Nepean youth. Would you please advise the House today on whether there will be such a review of the police investigation.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I appreciate the question, especially since the member for Ottawa South is in the assembly today and he raised this issue earlier. I'm afraid I can't comment on the specifics of it because charges are outstanding against the police officer under the disciplines

section of the Police Services Act. A date for a hearing will be set next week, December 5.

Also, complaints have been made to the Ontario police complaints commission in respect of the incident, so I'm not able to comment further upon those complaints and the charges against the officer until those matters are resolved.

Mr Bert Johnson: I appreciate that the minister cannot comment at this time because of the outstanding charges against the officer and of the complaints to the complaints commissioner. However, could he indicate whether a review will follow the resolution of these charges and complaints?

Hon Mr Runciman: I can give the member assurance, as I indicated, that once the matter has been dealt with by the police complaints commission and the discipline process as well, then I'll be in a position to review the circumstances and make a decision.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of Health. On the weekend, I met with representatives of the Lincoln County Academy of Medicine in the city of St Catharines.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): You were on the picket line.

Mr Bradley: I was not on a picket line. This group is expressing grave concerns about the policies of the government. One of the concerns they expressed was that in St Catharines, in their view, we now are an underserviced area in terms of the fact that we do not have sufficient family doctors. When people are retiring or moving out of the area, it is very difficult to have new doctors coming in, one of the reasons being that you will not give a billing number to people coming in from outside the province and I understand you can control billing numbers for new doctors coming out of university.

The question to the minister is this: In Ontario -- and I'm taking a long enough time so you can have a briefing note come to you from your assistant over there --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mr Bradley: Are you not concerned that communities such as St Catharines will not have the appropriate service in terms of general practitioners if you continue your policies in this direction?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): No, not at all -- quite the opposite, I say to the honourable member. First of all, with respect to his comments that we don't allow physicians in from other provinces, I have signed dozens of Bill 50 exemptions since coming to office, bringing the total number up to close to 150 between the previous NDP government and our government, so it is false to say we are not bringing in doctors from other areas. It's a patchwork approach, and we're looking for a more permanent solution to this problem in our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association.

What we have on the table is the most generous incentive program for areas like St Catharines, the rural areas around it, 76 communities in the province that don't have enough or any physician resources right now; the most generous incentive package on the table in our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association in the history of this province. I'm told by the Ontario Medical Association and by the Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario that incentives should work, so I've put new money on the table to attract doctors to those areas. I'm waiting for a positive response from the OMA in that regard.

Mr Bradley: I'll pass along to the Academy of Medicine your concerns about what you consider to be their false statements.

The second question I would ask is related to compulsory retirement. There has been some discussion that your government may be forcing doctors to retire at the age of 65. One of the ways in which you can allow an area to continue to be appropriately serviced is by not having a firm rule that says doctors must retire at age 65. Would you assure the members of the Academy of Medicine in my part of the province that it is not your intention to enforce a compulsory age-65 retirement on them, that you could leave that flexibility for communities such as mine?

Hon Mr Wilson: Those are very reasonable comments from the member for St Catharines. Yes, we're trying to do as much as we have to do to correct the problems and bring in long-term solutions. We're trying to do that through incentives. I can confirm for the member today -- now, this is an area on which we do have agreement with the OMA -- that we are trying to use an incentive package for retirement for physicians in this province. It's a very generous incentive package.

We have some oversupplied areas in the province. Members should know that for every new doctor over the last eight years who went into an underserviced area, seven went into an overserviced area like Metropolitan Toronto. We can't allow that to continue. It's strangling the incomes of doctors in the system now, given that there's a cap on the $3.8-billion pool, and it's not serving the people of Ontario in these communities that don't have enough doctors or have no doctors at all.

The people of Ontario own the health care system, not the politicians and not the doctors. We're doing everything we can, through financial incentives and other incentives, to ensure that things like early retirements do occur and that we bring in long-term solutions to the problems that have been in existence for many years in this province.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have another question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I was pleased to read in the Toronto Star last Friday that you appear to be reconsidering some of your cuts to shelters for battered women. I can only assume that you are finally admitting that in your haste to make room for a tax cut for the rich you cut too much too soon without considering the serious consequences.

Minister, in August you stated, "I think it's government by let's-see-what-happens." Is this what you meant? Is this the way you're going to be governing and deciding who gets cut where?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I suppose the real difficulty here is that there's not much sense of humour around anywhere.

Frankly, I answered this question earlier on in the House. What I said is that we have to look at ways to make government more affordable. I already spoke about the problem we had consistently over the last 10 years, where various ministries have acted as silos, where there has been no communication between them and there's been duplication of costs. We're looking at ways to make things more efficient. We have to look at how we can consolidate things, just general things that are common sense.

Ms Churley: I'm glad the minister has given me the opportunity to tell this House that I am a feminist with a sense of humour, as most people in this House are probably very well aware. But I do want to say to the minister that when it comes to violence against women and kids, I don't have a sense of humour. I never find it funny. I am really, really shocked to hear the minister respond in that way when we're talking about a subject like this.

Having said that, I was even more pleased to read in the same

article your statement that your across-the-board cut "doesn't recognize the relative importance of different programs." Does this mean that you are planning to review all the cuts made to the programs funded by your ministry, or does the program have to get a major headline or have its picture taken with the Premier to be reconsidered by you and your ministry?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I certainly do recognize that the member does have a very good sense of humour. You're quite right that it doesn't apply to this area. My comment was intended to indicate that when you take statements out of context and try to apply them and translate them to another area, certainly it's not right, aside from the fact that it doesn't make any sense.

With respect to what the honourable member is talking about, yes, one of the things we're looking at is certainly the consultative process. This is what we must do and this is what I am doing.

I don't know where people are today in the House. This is exactly the same question that I fielded earlier on today. I could have stood up, I suppose, and said the same thing.

Clearly, what we're trying to do is find a sensible way to deal with this, and the way we're doing that is by consulting people in the area.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to draw the members' attention to the fact that today we have a visitor in the gallery, the Honourable Jack Riddell, the former Minister of Agriculture.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from a number of people from junior kindergarten from the community of Timmins. They've taken the time to cut out the imprints of their little feet on to these pieces of cardboard, and the petition reads that they don't want to stamp out junior kindergarten. This is a unique petition, I think, from people in my riding who will end up becoming the future voters and future leaders. I know they don't want to see junior kindergarten stamped out, and Jason and Priscilla and Amanda would like me to present this petition on their behalf to the assembly of Ontario.

CHILD CARE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Premier and Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the parents, friends and staff of child care centres of Wellington county in the province of Ontario, do humbly petition the Premier and Legislature of Ontario that the government of Ontario consult fully with the parties to be affected before implementing the changes to child care policy to be announced in the November 29 economic statement."

This is signed by quite a number of my constituents from Fergus and Elora, and I've affixed my signature to this petition as well.

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the interim report of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force recommends the amalgamation of the Kenora Board of Education with the Dryden Board of Education and the Red Lake Board of Education; and

"Whereas the amalgamation of school boards in northwestern Ontario is not practical for operational and financial reasons because of the large distances between communities;

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

"To ensure the continuation of the present number of school boards in northwestern Ontario, except where local school boards and their communities, having evaluated the cost and benefits of amalgamation, request an amalgamation of their respective boards."

I've attached my name to that as well.

TAX REDUCTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have hundreds of signatures here, and this is only the beginning of petitions to the Legislature that read:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to abandon, reduce or delay the provincial government's proposed 30% tax reduction in order to maintain needed funding and services for the two million people of Metro Toronto."

I affix my signature to this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I was presented with this petition on Friday, and I'd like to read it into the record. It reads:

"Dear Tim Hudak, MPP, and the provincial government:

"We, as parents, board members and early childhood educators in the Fort Erie area feel recent cuts and impending cuts to the child care sector are putting Ontario's children at risk. By forcing parents to place their children in unlicensed, unregulated care, Ontario's children will suffer. Child care funds make up only one tenth of 1% of the total provincial budget. In the 15 weeks that Mr Harris has been Premier, $60 million has been slashed from this minuscule amount.

"We demand you look at the other 99.99% of the budget to cut your costs. Stop taking money from little children. Besides just being rude, it is not preventive and does not look to the future or the wellbeing of our children."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance and services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern region of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of all travellers."

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the Committee for a Safer 401, and the undersigned taxpaying citizens of Ontario demand that the government take a serious look at installing a safety median to separate the east and west traffic on the 401 Highway. This median should extend from the Highway 115/35 exit to at least Cobourg. This stretch of highway has been identified as one of the deadliest in Ontario."

I'm pleased to add my signature to this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to members of the Legislative Assembly. It reads as follows:

"The governments at provincial and regional levels are threatening cuts to child care programs. We see child care as an essential service to the community. A reduction in subsidized child care programs would result in unaffordable and unavailable child care, causing higher levels of unemployment and welfare dependency."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in agreement with its contents.

PRIVATIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yet another petition from Cochrane South, this time on the safety of our jails. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has indicated a need to privatize crown assets and programs;

"Whereas the provincial government plans to remove successor rights via Bill 7 and therefore enabling widespread privatization;

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution did not address the topic of privatization in prisons;

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution did, however, discuss issues relating to public safety:

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to eliminate this policy of actual intentions to privatize the provincial correction facilities and therefore ensuring the people of this province's peace of mind, knowing that the government of Ontario is still responsible for the safety and security of the province."

I signed the petition.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT AND DEBT

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I present a petition to the Legislative Assembly signed by constituents in Parkdale and High Park who are so concerned by the fiscal mess this government has inherited and the poverty and unemployment the Liberal and NDP fiscal mismanagement have caused in Ontario that they ask this government to make the elimination of the provincial deficit and debt the highest priority of the Mike Harris government. I so present this.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas all students in Ontario deserve equal educational opportunities; and

"Whereas we understand the importance of controlling costs; and

"Whereas reductions to core grants severely impact assessment-poor boards;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to effect reasonable reductions in the education system and to ensure that the reductions are shared in a fair and equitable manner."

I've affixed my signature to this.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance and services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I have attached my name to that as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Last week I had the privilege of taking

part in an extraordinary rally in Thunder Bay attended by hundreds of parents, children and early childhood educators. At that rally and a protest the next day this petition was presented to me.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services, under the direction of the provincial government, is intent on replacing child care subsidies with a voucher system; and

"Whereas this voucher system will discriminate against families presently utilizing subsidies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these cuts to this critical economic investment for communities of Ontario and to guarantee that the current child care subsidy system remains funded and supported."

It is signed by 1,400 people, and I'm proud to add my name.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): This is a petition signed by many supporters of Northwestern General Hospital. The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended to close Northwestern General Hospital and merge all programs and services with Humber Memorial Hospital;

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

"That the recommendation of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to close Northwestern General Hospital be rejected by the government of Ontario and that it keep Northwestern Hospital open" forever.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yet another petition from the riding of Cochrane South, this time from the parents of those children who sent their imprints of feet in regard to how they feel about the cancellation of junior kindergarten. Now from their parents:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Please do not stop funding school boards for junior kindergarten programs. Early education helps children stay in school longer and improves their reading, math and language skills. It saves society millions of dollars that would later be spent on remedial social programs. Our children's future is worth it."

I have somewhere about 1,000 or 1,500 of those cards signed from a number of people throughout the area of Cochrane South, including Iroquois Falls, Matheson and Timmins.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I too have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and signed by people from all over Ontario. It states:

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended to close Northwestern General Hospital and merge all programs and services with Humber Memorial Hospital on Humber's site;

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

"That the recommendation of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to close Northwestern General Hospital be rejected by this government of Ontario and that it keep Northwestern Hospital open."

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "We, the undersigned, are asking the Ministry of Transportation to re-evaluate their position in regard to putting a vehicle licensing office back into the town of Ridgetown. By signing this petition we are saying that the licensing office is badly needed here."

It's signed by a number of residents in and around the Ridgetown area.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 19,

An Act to repeal the Advocacy Act, 1992, revise the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992, amend the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and amend other Acts in respect of related matters / Projet de loi 19, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, révisant la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement, modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne des questions connexes.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Debate? Mrs Caplan had the floor at the last. I recognize the member for Downsview.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): It gives me great pleasure to continue the opening discussion on Bill 19, the Advocacy, Consent and Substitute Decisions Statute Law Amendment Act. We in the Liberal Party have for some time recognized the need for change in the area of advocacy, consent and substitute decision-making, believing as we do that the current system is ill-conceived, intrusive, onerous and unfair for all affected by the system -- individuals, their families, practitioners, attorneys and the public trustee.

Just at the time that people are at their most vulnerable, we have seen a cumbersome set of provisions that have added to their vulnerability. Add to that the confusion generated by such provisions and you have a veritable recipe for chaos. We have therefore been proactive and innovative in seeking and offering solutions to the many problems created by the system at hand.

And there are many problems. The bureaucratic web that has been woven by the legislation put in place by the previous government has had the effect of confusing and trapping unsuspecting Ontarians who cannot be faulted for believing that they and their families have primary control over their own affairs.

This three-pronged legislative pyramid has generated a nightmarish network of paperwork, obstruction, delays and frustration. As a lawyer, I can tell you that my office and so many others have had to deal almost daily with clients who were uncertain and at a loss to find their way through the maze that has been created. There is a critical need to simplify the current legislative measures and to streamline the processes so as to create a user-friendly, cost-effective system of real citizen protection and support.

But this debate, as you will no doubt appreciate, provides us with much more than an opportunity to bring about changes to legislation that is desperately in need of reform. This debate, like no other thus far in the legislative session, gives us all the opportunity, the forum and indeed the motivation to delve into the critical issue of what is and should be the essential role of government in society.

This is an issue that requires our utmost attention and that must be clearly understood. As members of society, as members of the Legislature, as representatives of the people of Ontario, we all have a positive obligation to continuously define and assess government's role. One's vision of government fundamentally influences one's political perspective, ideology and affiliation.

There are those individuals who expound the need for large government characterized by social and economic interjections. Such a government believes, at its most basic, that government is the only tool by which meaningful change occurs. It promotes continual government involvement in the daily lives and daily affairs of citizens to achieve ends designated by it. It is convinced that it is entirely justifiable for a government to act intrusively if the end goal is the achievement of its notion of equity.

This is the political approach the former government brought to Ontario, and it is the philosophy behind the NDP's Advocacy Act, Consent to Treatment Act and Substitute Decisions Act. Because this legislation has been draped in this philosophy, these acts have had a very difficult existence and have failed to achieve public acceptability.

Now we have a new government in power that goes beyond even old-style Tory politics and that is demonstrating how enthusiastically it will attack the social fabric of Ontario from the other extreme of the political spectrum. This philosophy promotes a mass government exodus from society with few regards to the repercussions. Its prime objective is stated to be spending reduction and it appears to be willing to achieve that at all social costs. There appears to be little government concern that the result of its arbitrary and across-the-board spending cuts is a rapid movement towards a much less equitable social structure.

Whereas the NDP policies hit the middle and upper classes exceptionally hard, the Tories are attacking the less fortunate groups to promote the benefits of those least in need.

Although from a different end of the spectrum, this government seems content on continuing an ideological war that has bogged down Ontario for the past five years. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that Ontarians will not suffer being the victims of such political extremes much longer.

What Ontarians do want, however, is a debate on the issues and a debate on the policies according to merit, according to quality and according to the needs of Ontarians, and what Ontario needs is not total government control or total lack of government involvement; we need to find a clear middle ground that provides for government involvement only when necessary, but to a level that achieves the objectives required to govern fairly and justly. A government that fails to act or fails to control its zealousness fails to live up to the expectations and needs of the public.

The debate surrounding Bill 19 and the acts it intends to repeal and amend is a good example of the problems that can be generated when government operates with blinders on while ignoring fundamental considerations. As is evident from the bill's title, three existing pieces of legislation are at the core of Bill 19: the Advocacy Act, the Consent to Treatment Act and the Substitute Decisions Act.

Let me begin with the Advocacy Act. The term "advocacy" is a relatively recent concept and is representative of the changing nature of society and its growing complexity and expansion in terms of our laws, policies, procedures and indeed our human service programs. Society's increased consciousness of advocacy can be derived from a global trend that is placing a higher premium on the virtues of legal and human rights.

Bill 74 was introduced by the former government and proclaimed law on April 3, 1995. Its intent was to provide advocates for people who have trouble getting their rights and wishes respected due to temporary or permanent physical or mental disability, illness or frailty. It also established an Advocacy Commission to coordinate this process.

The act's objective -- to empower vulnerable citizens -- foundered because it focused too much emphasis on augmenting the power of advocates rather than improving the rights and capabilities of vulnerable people themselves. I believe few individuals would object to the argument that the long-term, lasting solution should be the promotion of self-advocacy by which vulnerable persons learn the skills and knowledge that provide them the independence to solve problems on their own. Instead, the Advocacy Act broadened the scope of government by creating an excessively bureaucratic and expensive structure that worked against the independence of individuals.

This new system worked towards undermining the role of families by enhancing the power and rights of potentially untrained advocates. Advocates were granted vast rights of access to records, as well as entry to institutions and premises, including private homes, for the purposes of providing advocacy services. Furthermore, advocates could obtain warrants for entry when they had been prevented from meeting with a vulnerable person.

It is a fact that terrified Ontarians, seniors in particular, flocked to lawyers' offices to seek advice, fearing that they and their families would have a diminished role in their own affairs.

This far-reaching legislation opened the door not only to enormous implementation and operating costs, estimated to be as high as $30 million to $50 million annually, but also to the very real potential for abuse.

The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, here with us today, stated in July that the government would repeal the Advocacy Act and "develop an alternative approach to delivering advocacy services." She went on to say that the "measures that we intend to develop will help to ensure that the interests of vulnerable people are protected and that they can participate in decisions that affect their lives."

Part I of Bill 19 does indeed repeal the Advocacy Act, including the abolition of the Advocacy Commission, which I support. Taxpayers spent almost $18 million setting up the commission and hiring rights advisers. The new government acknowledges that the commission has not even begun to delve into its mandate of advocacy, but rather has thus far focused on community education and outreach.

However, I ask, where is the real plan to establish a long-term, lasting solution to the advocacy problem? How is the government going to assist vulnerable citizens to develop self-advocacy skills?

This is exactly the type of problem to which I made reference earlier. The former government went so far as to create an overly bureaucratic, unworkable situation that empowered the wrong people, while the current government is so eager to reduce spending that it fails to deal with the critical issue. Surely it is the role of government to lead and to seek balance. We believe that the spotlight must be focused on those who matter most in this issue: the vulnerable.

I will not devote a great amount of time to

part II, the Health Care Consent Act, as my colleague from Oriole has already spent a considerable amount of time on this portion of the bill. I would, however, like to make a few comments from a legal perspective.

Firstly, I believe that the bill incorporates some necessary changes that will streamline the process by removing many of the bureaucratic barriers currently in place that create very lengthy and complicated procedures, particularly in terms of the rights advisers.

However, I have a concern that with the removal of rights advisers, a void will be created that leaves patients in limbo. The reforms now being considered are intended to clarify the many rights and obligations involved in these areas. It would be unreasonable to leave this very crucial aspect of the act unclear, thereby failing to fully guard patients against abuses while jeopardizing the integrity of the act itself. We must ensure that a process is in place that outlines treatment rights of patients and ensures that those rights are easily communicated to the patients. A patient unfamiliar with his or her rights is a patient without any rights.

Let me now turn to

part III, the proposed amendments to the Substitute Decisions Act. The law is intended to provide individuals with more control over the direction of their lives in the event they become incapable of making their own decisions. This includes respecting people's choices made before they became mentally incapable, as well as their current wishes.

The legislation has been further designed to recognize the importance of the role of family members during these stressful and difficult times. Finally, one of the other main objectives of the act is to limit public guardianship and other government intrusions into private family matters. The Substitute Decisions Act also outlines the procedures by which decision-makers may be appointed for mentally incapable persons.

Many of these broad objectives were incorporated into the original act and are further enhanced in the current legislation. I believe all members of this House would agree that these are honourable objectives, as demonstrated by the legislation's original support by all three parties.

I will acknowledge that this new amending legislation does take steps to improve the current act, particularly in terms of simplification and ease of understanding and reduced bureaucratization. The role of the public guardian and trustee has been clearly defined as one of last resort, actually being prohibited from being appointed guardian unless no other suitable individual is available. This is something I support. Furthermore, the requirements involved in appointing and activating a power of attorney will be made simpler. These are all steps forward.

Let me now remind the House of some of the difficulties the last government experienced with the original legislation. As I'm sure you remember, there was an enormous controversy surrounding the passage and implementation of that legislation. Vulnerable people, their families and citizens at large began experiencing considerable anxiety and indeed fear from the legislation that was intended to assist and protect them.

This environment of insecurity developed from the confusion generated by the legislation's own complexity and lack of clarity and was very damaging to the act's objectives and public acceptability. The problems were preventable. The legislation should have been designed more concisely, with public

interpretation in mind.

The government of the time also failed to undertake at the initial stages a communications strategy that would have adequately explained to the public, particularly the vulnerable citizens and their families, the real intentions of the legislation and individuals' related obligations.

Instead, misinformation and public confusion ran rampant. The public, including a large proportion of the senior population, understood the act to suggest that if one did not appoint a power of attorney, the public guardian would automatically step in in times of incapacity. The chaos that developed forced the government to attempt damage control by preparing and distributing a detailed information package.

Let this be a lesson to the new government. We are dealing with an extremely sensitive issue and it is imperative not only that this new legislation protect the most vulnerable citizens in society against hardship and fear but that the public also understand and accept these as the legislation's objectives. Do not make the same mistake as your predecessors; take steps to communicate these changes clearly and in a timely fashion to the public.

Because of the sensitivity and importance of this matter, I would like to think that the government has already undertaken a process of widespread consultation to solicit input from the community, particularly those individuals who have experienced the system from within. Those who have firsthand knowledge of the power of attorney and guardianship processes would provide invaluable insight into the problems and difficulties, highlighting those areas needing the most attention.

My concern is that the government has not conducted such consultation, has not reached out to the people who must live with these changes. Now that the legislation has been prepared, there must be an opportunity for the public, involved families and advocacy groups to review the clauses, assess their impacts and provide feedback to the government.

Public consultation should not be viewed by any government as an obstacle or diversion or hindrance to the legislative process. We must always remember that we are working here on behalf of all citizens and must never allow the direct lines of communication to be broken.

I must point out that public reaction to legislation, whether in committee or public meetings, is never as effective or as acceptable as true consultation prior to tabling a bill. We, as public representatives, must come to accept the citizen's right to active involvement in the policy development process.

I will be supporting this legislation on second reading. We will be submitting, however, amendments that I firmly believe will strengthen this legislation. While I have already touched on most of the areas I believe need amending, I will now reinforce the legislation's shortcomings and outline specific recommended changes. I also look forward to discussing them further in committee and hope the government will consider our amendments seriously.

The elimination of rights advisers, for instance, may create a situation in which vulnerable citizens are left without an adequate safeguard of their rights. It would be truly remarkable, truly ironic in Ontario, if our society, which is increasingly influenced by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the most powerful rights protection legislation in the country, failed to ensure the protection of rights of this province's most defenceless citizens. There is a real and obvious need to ensure the existence of a rights process which these people can manoeuvre within, and easily.

This is consistent with the principle of natural justice, that an individual has the right to know. This means that there is a right to know one's individual rights and the right to know the procedures involved in exercising those rights. We will look to enhance the legislation to include such a right to know. This requires a positive obligation on professionals to inform people of their rights.

As my colleague from Oriole has already pointed out, this could be achieved through agreement by the various colleges regulating the professions to establish clinical guidelines that clearly and explicitly outline the obligation of members of the professional community to inform people of their rights.

We will also propose that the professional colleges be subject to a legislative requirement to develop clinical guidelines with regard to consent to treatment. This builds effectively upon the notion of an individual's right to know. It is also consistent with the widely accepted principle that an individual has a right to make informed decisions based on all the facts.

I know all members of this House would agree that it is essential, that it should be a fundamental precept within the legal and health care fields, for there to exist a broad understanding and a broad acceptance of the undeniable right of individuals called upon to make important decisions to have in their possession all of the relevant facts and information. Any decision that is not an informed decision will likely be a bad decision and potentially even a dangerous one.

I am also concerned with the legislation's apparent lack of guidelines respecting the definition of "capacity." The bill leaves such determination to clinical practice. While mental and physical capacity are extremely difficult concepts to manage, I believe there should be a framework in place that provides some direction, some basic criteria, rather than leave these important determinations to the discretion of individual practitioners, with the discrepancies that may result. I fear that this could open the door to the possibility of an increased level of litigation, thereby complicating and lengthening the process unreasonably.

However, there must also be a broadly accepted understanding of the notion of consent itself. It is not enough simply to enforce a right to know and an obligation to inform. The granting of consent involves more than the simple disclosure of all pertinent information. The individual must be mentally competent to grant that consent and must be doing so voluntarily. There must be safeguards in place to protect against abuse. There must also be a clear process to follow in the event of incompetency. These are areas that still require to be refined under the legislation.

Therefore, we must ensure not only that the concept of consent to treatment be understood by health care professionals, but that it be applied to all sectors of the health care field. Furthermore, the solution of ridding the system of rights advisers and placing more responsibilities on the shoulders of the family is not as simple as the government may think.

These amendments would work hand in hand towards establishing a framework that would guarantee basic individual rights in this sector. They would reinforce a unique relationship between patient and health care practitioner in which the practitioner has an obligation to inform and the patient has a right to know and therefore a right to grant an informed, voluntary consent.

We are of the view that the proposed legislation ought to be strong legislation, setting out a series of general principles with wide application in a broad number of settings, rather than relying on current various legislative mechanisms that only serve further to confuse Ontarians.

We feel that the discussion of this legislation is timely, and I hope the government will consider seriously our amendments which are designed solely to give the people of Ontario the strong and clear legislation they deserve.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the members for Oriole and Downsview for their presentation on the bill and their indication that they are prepared to support the bill in principle.

I would like to make a couple of comments with respect to particularly the member for Downsview's remarks. I think I'd like to clarify one issue that she came out with, and that was with respect to the sole purpose of this bill being to get rid of the Advocacy Commission. Certainly that's a consideration, the consideration of the $18 million that you mentioned to set it up, but that's not the sole purpose.

With respect to the consultation issue, I'd like to remind the member for Downsview in particular that we have gone through in this House, with the previous New Democratic government, at least two sets of hearings. Every member who ran for office, certainly re-elected members for office, went around -- I held individual hearings in my riding and I know other members of this House did the same thing -- to try to explain to people the purposes of the existing bill.

In doing that, we found out ourselves, in our own consultations, the problems with this bill. The government's going to get out of the face of the electorate in this province.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I think the singular effort of the Ministry of the Attorney General in bringing Bill 19 to this House so quickly is something I would have hoped my esteemed colleague the member for Downsview might have referred to, because of her own professional background, which is very creditable. She has obviously achieved a great deal already in her young life.

I thought that in speaking to this bill she might have commended Charles Harnick, our Attorney General, for the fact that he has cleared up some of the outstanding questions about the legislation in terms of the Advocacy Act and the Consent to Treatment Act that the previous government passed.

I say to the member for Downsview that I chaired the government agencies committee which approved some of the appointments of the members to the Advocacy Commission. I suggest, with respect, that had you been in that committee hearing at the time those interviews of those appointments were taking place, you would indeed share some of the concern that all of us had about how the Advocacy Commission could function with such biased people sitting who were appointed to that commission.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Whoops. That's not entirely fair.

Mrs Marland: I'm sorry to upset the member for Lake Nipigon by saying that, but it was indeed a fact. I'm glad that this legislation will remedy --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Any further questions or comments?

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I just want to make a couple of comments that relate specifically to the health part of the act. Basically, I'd like to say that I want to draw to your attention, as I think the other two members have, that we believe consultation has happened. There were over 200 consumers heard in 1992. We all feel that there was consultation when we rapped at doors during the election. We had two years of intensive consultations. We believe that we know the views of many of the people on the street who are dealing with this on a day-to-day basis.

The thing I wanted to talk about was the rights advice. You suggested that there was a need for rights advisers. I want to comment on our position with respect to rights advisers. We believe that there's no need for outside third parties and regimented requirements about how to provide rights advisers. We believe that these matters can be discussed between the health practitioner and the family and/or people who are dealing with the concerns of an individual.

We believe that we have to encourage health practitioners to provide information about the review process and the policies that a person can take if they don't like the decision. I know that we can always look at it and say the health practitioner isn't going to act in the best interests of a person who needs help or is incapable, but we believe that, through the colleges and all of the advisory boards we have, in effect the health practitioner will act in the best interests of the people, and we believe that the families are the best people to talk to with respect to that.

That's the one thing we have that we feel different