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

December 7, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Dec-07 vol. A (PDF)

L024A - Tue 7 Dec 1999 / Mar 7 déc 1999

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

MUNICIPAL RECOGNITION AWARDS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

LITERACY

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING / RESTRUCTURATION DES MUNICIPALITÉS

SMALL BUSINESS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT (MINIMUM READINESS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES (DISPONIBILITÉ MINIMALE)

VISITOR

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

DEFERRED VOTES

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

IMPERIAL LIFE ASSURANCE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

EMERGENCY SERVICES

PROFESSIONAL BOXING

WORKFARE

PREMIER'S RESEARCH EXCELLENCE AWARD

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

MOHAWK RACEWAY

CANCER TREATMENT

VISITOR

PETITIONS

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AIR QUALITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): A funny thing happened on the way to the world trade forum in Seattle. The WTO agenda was sufficiently modest and vague that few felt it could fail. But fail it did, not only because of the riots, tear gas and rubber bullets but because of the differences between the have nations and the have-nots that are so irreconcilable that the negotiations broke down before they even got started.

The WTO talks also failed because the wealthy nations refused to retreat from entrenched positions. The European Union insisted on talks on new global rules on investment. Japan wanted the US to negotiate on weakening its rules that block imports. The US made the most demands and refused to back down on issues essential to its labour allies.

Services were on the table, casting doubt on Canada's ability to maintain its public health care and education system. A series of decisions at the organization's appeals tribunal had interfered with policies designed to protect the environment and social and cultural policy.

As a result, the WTO, which ought to symbolize the widespread benefits of global trade, is perceived as the hostage of protectionist instincts. The WTO is a negotiating forum but it lacks credibility as an agent of change promoting broad global prosperity. Its unwillingness to take up issues that would benefit developing countries at the expense of rich ones puts the WTO under a cloud of suspicion in the developing world.

Ontario's economy is heavily dependent on international trade. There are undeniable benefits to be derived from fair global trade. That message shouldn't be drowned out by the riots and the inability of the WTO to come to grips with the challenges of getting a global consensus.

MUNICIPAL RECOGNITION AWARDS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise in the House today to congratulate the winners of the 1999 Town of Georgina Municipal Recognition Awards.

The Municipal Recognition Awards are set up to honour those who have made outstanding contributions to their communities. This year the town of Georgina has honoured 12 individuals from a variety of backgrounds who have dedicated their time and energy to a host of worthwhile causes.

Individuals were honoured for their contribution to causes such as preservation of our local heritages sites, celebrating and promoting sports and culture and helping our youth, seniors and others in need. These people have recognized that there is more to being part of a community than just living or working in it. Throughout our history, it has been the actions of concerned citizens who have made a positive difference and improved the development and progress of our province.

As a long-time resident of Georgina, I want to personally thank Gavin Morton, Crystal Monks, Crystal Moore, Gerry and Shirley Verdoold, Sharon and Murray Bowers, Ivan Day, Patti Preston, Joan and the late Ken Davenport and the late Larry Grasby for their efforts.

Through your generosity, caring and hard work, you have made our community a better place to live, prosper and enjoy life.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): It is with great concern and disappointment that I rise today to talk about the Fewer Municipal Politicians Act on local government reform. This omnibus bill does not favour the residents of the proposed amalgamated municipalities. It is corrupt. It permits the two cabinet ministers to have special consideration for the people of their ridings.

When I looked at this report, the Shortliffe report, and the omnibus bill, they contradict each other. Why is it that two cabinet ministers are getting special consideration? Why is that it in the report we don't recognize bilingual services in Ottawa-Carleton? Ottawa is the capital city of Canada. We are to give services in both languages, and it is clearly in there on page 8 of the Shortliffe report that the municipality should be recognized as a bilingual city.

Why is it that west Carleton, Cabinet Minister Norm Sterling's riding, could opt out of this agreement any time they want? Does it not apply to other regions within the new megacity? Why is it that Nepean will have special consideration and Cumberland won't? They also have a surplus in the bank, but it is not considered.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): The tremendous growth we are witnessing in the Ontario economy is the direct result of the economic and financial direction established by this government since 1995.

Today, Ontario leads not only the nation but every jurisdiction in the G8 in economic growth and job creation.

The bottom line is that tax cuts work to stimulate the economy. As a direct result of this government removing a sizeable portion of the tax burden from the backs of taxpayers, there is an optimism for the future of the province which has not been visible for many years.

Business leaders, the true economic leaders of the province through their organizations such as the chambers of commerce, the Ontario manufacturing association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represent tens of thousands of employers in the province, agree with the economic policies of this government.

To date this government has reduced taxes 69 times, including reducing provincial personal income taxes by 30%, with a further 20% to come. Compare this to the 65 tax increases imposed by the former Liberal and NDP governments.

This year the deficit is down by more than 50%, from the projected $2.08 billion to $1.03 billion. As promised to the taxpayers in 1995, this government will balance the budget in 2000-01.

The Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act will ensure that deficits will soon be a thing of the past.

Revenues are up, jobs are up. Ontario's future truly looks prosperous, and I am proud to be a member of the government which is leading the way to prosperity.

LITERACY

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Recently I had the opportunity to meet with the Ontario Literacy Coalition, which informed me that literacy is a significant issue for Ontario's seniors.

This organization would tell me that of the 1.7 million Ontarians at the lowest literacy level, 900,000, more than half of the total number, are over the age of 55. Yet there appears to be no government support for literacy programs directed at seniors.

Government allocations for literacy programming are directed towards employment readiness skills and training. It is obvious that the government must also focus literacy resources to include seniors.

One of the leading causes of hospitalization for seniors is the use of contraindicated medication. Literacy statistics would indicate that this is attributable to the inability of many seniors to translate or understand directions.

Also, as individuals age, their support systems, friends and family, change and disappear, making it difficult for many seniors with lower literacy levels to manage.

Improved literacy will help seniors to remain strong, healthy and independent so that they can age in place.

As their critic and advocate, I am not prepared to accept these literacy statistics and, as such, I am asking the minister responsible for seniors to act on this most serious issue.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today to share a well-kept secret with all members of this House.

We all know the importance of always being up to date on the issues of the day and to have a talented researcher supporting us. Would you like to know where you can get great research in a way that would truly benefit all involved? An ideal place is from the people who are doing it all the time: our university and college students.

Dr Magda Havas, a professor of environmental and resource studies at Trent University, approached me earlier this fall to propose a very creative initiative whose purpose would be twofold. Dr Havas proposed that her students would be given environmental issues that I, as the MPP, wanted researched. In her proposal, students would benefit by getting a chance to supply the theoretical knowledge they learn in their course, to sharpen their research skills and to see how their work can affect government policy.

In this partnership, I as the MPP stand to benefit from their top-quality research, giving me a better understanding of the environmental issues that affect my constituents in Peterborough.

Students at Trent are constantly displaying their high level of excellence in this and other fields. I understand that congratulations are in order to Matthew MacLeod, a Trent graduate student who received the 1999 Ministry of the Environment Award of Excellence. This is an example of the research being done by young people that we can tap into.

My congratulations to all members who will contact-

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING / RESTRUCTURATION DES MUNICIPALITÉS

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : Aujourd'hui encore, je soulève la question des droits constitutionnels de la communauté francophone.

Cette fois-ci je ferai ma déclaration en anglais, afin de m'assurer que le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones me comprenne.

The minister responsible for francophone affairs is, and I quote from his own literature on the subject, "responsible for fostering the francophone community's participation in the government's agenda for renewal."

If the government's proposed municipal restructuring of Ottawa-Carleton and Sudbury is not part of that agenda for renewal, then I don't know what is.

Yes, just as the minister has refused to comment on the Montfort decision and its importance to the francophone community, so has he refused to have a stand for declaring bilingual the restructured city of Ottawa, the national capital, as well as the new city of Sudbury.

Members of the francophone community are calling for the resignation of the minister. They feel that the minister has not fulfilled his responsibilities. He has been silent and invisible. He has not defended the constitutional rights of francophones within his very caucus.

The message from the francophone community is clear. It demands that the minister responsible for francophone Affairs take a stand, that he defend the constitutional rights of Franco-Ontarians and that he show some backbone.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Broadview-Greenwood.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I rise today to tell the House about the outrage people in the city of Toronto are feeling about the latest attack on democracy here in the city of Toronto since Bill 103.

People in Toronto held their own referendum and voted against amalgamation, and the government went ahead and did it anyway. Then the minister of the day and the minister after him, who is sitting in the House today, said, "OK, we've done it and now it's up to you, the city council, to work out the process from here: number of councillors, wards etc." The city of Toronto took that in good faith and spent a year and a half going through a process, including a process before the OMB.

I want you to know that residents from my community, from the East York section, went to those OMB hearings and spent countless hours trying to present their case. There were some winners and there were some losers in that case, but at the end of the day there was a process.

After all of that money being spent, what does the government do? They download even more millions of dollars to the city of Toronto and at the same time bring in this bill saying that the city councillors are going to be reduced yet again. The city of Toronto has had it up to here with this government. When are they going to do something in the 905? We wonder why they're not touching that area.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr David Young (Willowdale): Because of the strong leadership of the Mike Harris government and the hard work of the people of Ontario-

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. If I'm standing and somebody else is talking, that person is out of order.

I ask the member for Willowdale to start over again for me, please.

Mr Young: Because of the strong leadership of the Mike Harris government and the hard work of the people of Ontario, our province is once again the economic engine of this country.

I recently had the opportunity of meeting with small business leaders from the North York Chamber of Commerce. Small businesses are in fact responsible for 80% of jobs in this province. They are the driving force behind this province's economic success.

The business people I met with told me very clearly that our tax cuts, especially the payroll taxes, and our fight to reduce red tape has enabled them to do what they do best, and that is to create jobs. However, small businesses in my community continue to worry about the excessive tax burdens placed upon them by the federal government. Of particular concern is the employment insurance scheme that continues to be a tax on job creation.

Perhaps this holiday season the Scrooges in Ottawa can find it in their hearts to cut and return the projected $147-billion surplus to taxpayers. As well as Ontario is doing, and we are doing well, we must never become complacent. Bringing hope, growth and opportunity to Ontario is dependent upon our keeping our Blueprint commitment to further cut red tape, to cut taxes and to reduce the size of government. Families and small businesses in Willowdale and across this province expect and deserve nothing less.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 11,

An Act to reduce red tape, to promote good government through better management of Ministries and agencies and to improve customer service by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting four new Acts / Projet de loi 11, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives, à promouvoir un bon gouvernement par une meilleure gestion des ministères et organismes et à améliorer le service à la clientèle en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant quatre nouvelles lois.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Wednesday, December 1, 1999, the bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act and the MPPs Pension Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite et la Loi de 1996 sur le régime de retraite des députés.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. Would the member for Bruce-Grey please take his seat.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): After some months of consultation with respect to many different people in the pension area and pension plan participants themselves, the government is proceeding with some reforms to the Pension Benefits Act of Ontario.

Among the things included: It will allow Ontarians easier access to their own retirement accounts; it will provide access to the entire amount for individuals faced with hardship or difficult circumstances; it also proposes to do away with the necessity of buying an annuity so that at the end of an individual's time, with respect to their retirement and pension account, the amount remaining in their pension plan will be able to go to their beneficiaries as opposed to going to the insurance company from whom you purchased an annuity.

No doubt there are many more changes that could and should be made to the Pension Benefits Act of Ontario, but we regard this as the first step, and a necessary first step, towards reforming the act.

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

Mr Wettlaufer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 28,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day / Projet de loi 28, Loi proclamant le Jour des pionniers allemands.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Does the member have a brief statement?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): During and immediately after the American Revolution, there were thousands of United Empire-

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: I ask the member for Kingston and the Islands to withdraw that remark, please.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The Chair recognizes the member for Kitchener Centre.

Mr Wettlaufer: During and after the American Revolution 200 years ago, there were thousands of United Empire Loyalists who came to Canada-British North America, as it was then known-from the United States. Many of these were of German origin who had earlier settled in Pennsylvania and New York and even as far south as Georgia.

These settlers came to Ontario looking for religious freedom, and they came to Upper and Lower Canada. They came in search of land and they were given free land by the then Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe.

That was the first wave of German settlers who-

The Deputy Speaker: I didn't want to get into the debate of it. I just wanted a brief statement, so I appreciate that very much.

Mr Wettlaufer: It is to pay tribute to those pioneers who came to this part of the country.

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT (MINIMUM READINESS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES (DISPONIBILITÉ MINIMALE)

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act to provide for the minimum staffing and equipping of ambulance stations / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ambulances pour assurer la dotation minimale en personnel et en équipement des postes d'ambulances.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Lalonde has introduced a bill to amend the Ambulance Act. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? It is carried.

Does the member have a brief statement?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): The bill amends the Ambulance Act by adding a new

section 19(1). The new

section requires the operator of a land ambulance service to ensure that for at least 12 hours each day, at least one ambulance and at least two people qualified to staff the ambulance are either located in the ambulance station or are providing ambulance services outside of the station. The 12 hours need not be consecutive.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I'd like to bring to the members' attention Bruce Smith in the members' east gallery, the former member for Middlesex.

Whether you're interested or not, I was going to bring you up to date, member from Sudbury, on the health of your Deputy Speaker. I was down to see Colleen in the nurses' thing today, and our congratulations to the efficient staff here: Temperature is down, temperament is not.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there consent? It is agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 11.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I'm going to hold that vote, and I recognize the member for Hamilton West on a point of order.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I just wanted a brief explanation. I haven't been advised of the request here, so if I could ask the government leader's indulgence for a quick explanation, perhaps we can still accommodate him.

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of order as well, Mr Speaker: Mr Lalonde has introduced his bill late for private members' hour, and it's waiving notice with regard to the requirement that it be two weeks in advance of the time it's debated.

Mr Christopherson: That wouldn't be a problem, Mr Speaker. We would provide unanimous consent.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved that, notwithstanding standing order 96(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 11.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to ask the Minister of Finance to do a statement about the changes to the MPPs' pension plan that they've announced in the House today.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? I heard a no.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I rise today to talk about the Mike Harris government's strong commitment to Ontario's farmers.

Agriculture is the second-largest industry in the province, contributing $25 billion annually to the economy. Earlier today, the Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Mike Harris, reiterated this government's commitment to providing a strong safety net for Ontario's farmers.

As we all know, farmers across Canada have been under tremendous pressure. That is why it is essential for Ontario's farmers and for the economy they support and depend on that we have an effective safety net system.

Today I want to inform my colleagues that Ontario is determined to take a leadership role to win for our farmers a fair share of the dollars earmarked for farm income safety net programs.

The federal and provincial ministers of agriculture will be meeting in Toronto over the next two days. The goal of this meeting is to reach an agreement on the national safety net framework. My goal is to ensure that such an agreement recognizes that the size of each province's agriculture industry is the only equitable basis for the allocation of federal dollars.

This government understands the tremendously valuable contribution that farmers make to the social and economic well-being of every person in Ontario. That is why, time and time again, we have committed ourselves to supporting our agriculture industry.

We acted on that promise last December, when we were the first province to announce an income disaster assistance program for our farmers in recognition of the fact that, through no fault of their own, producers of hogs, cattle, grain and oilseeds, as well as some horticultural crops, were facing drastic reductions in their income.

We are ready to act on that promise again. We will do our part and provide our full share of what Ontario's farmers need and deserve.

I'm pleased to inform the House that Ontario remains committed to the agricultural income disaster assistance program and we will spend up to an additional $30 million to assist farmers in need.

We want to ensure that these additional funds are used in a way that best meets the needs of Ontario's farmers. We're calling on the federal Liberals to sit down and negotiate with us to find ways to deliver this support without undermining other safety net programs that are so important to Ontario's farmers. We will do our part. We fully expect the federal Liberals to do theirs.

At the first ministers meeting this summer, Premier Mike Harris told the federal Liberals that Ontario's farmers are entitled to a fair share, an equitable share, of federal safety net funding. I took that same message to the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of agriculture meeting in July.

At the International Plowing Match this past September, we reiterated our position to Ontario's farm leaders.

This government has made a promise to Ontario's hardworking farmers, and that promise includes winning national recognition of the fact that agriculture, whether in Ontario or the Prairies, is a risky business. It includes ensuring that our farmers are not penalized for their diversity and it includes providing our farmers with the best possible combination of risk management tools.

So tomorrow, when I take my place at the table along with the ministers of agriculture from Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, from Alberta and Quebec, I will be insisting that Ontario farmers receive their fair share. I will ask the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to recognize that individual farmers in Ontario are facing hardships as severe, and in some cases more so, as their counterparts elsewhere in Canada.

I will emphasize that Ontario is committed to enhancing safety net programming for Ontario's farmers. The Mike Harris government is fully prepared to put up our share of the funding and fully expects the federal government to come through. I will remind the federal minister that a national agreement is a partnership, and in a true partnership action is not taken unilaterally. When that becomes the norm, when some partners are more-or less-equal, then perhaps it is time to question that partnership.

If the federal Liberals do not give Ontario farmers their fair share of the national safety net dollars, our province may have no choice but to leave the national system and negotiate a made-in-Ontario safety net program.

That is what I will be doing, questioning a partnership that does not treat its partners equally, seeking some stability, some predictability for our agriculture industry, fighting to secure Ontario's farmers their fair share of federal funding.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): The minister today has announced that he thinks farmers should get their fair share. It should come as no surprise that our caucus also believes farmers should get their fair share.

The Ontario corn producers and other commodity groups have raised this issue for some time. They've raised this issue for months, all through the negotiations on the AIDA program, and now months later the minister is agreeing with Ontario farmers. It's better late than never.

But what the minister doesn't say is that the federal government pays more in Ontario than the province does. So if you really want to help farmers, I say increase your provincial share to match more closely the federal contribution, and lower premiums for farmers.

The principle of fair share should start at home. In the last four years Ontario farmers have not received their promised fair share from this government. The minister's statement ignores the fact that his government does not practise what it preaches when it comes to the concept of a fair share for Ontario agriculture.

Let's talk more about the concept of fair share for farmers the minister announced today. The minister said today that agriculture is the second-largest industry and contributes $25 billion to the provincial economy. Other studies have shown that every $1 million created by agriculture creates 31 new jobs. Clearly this is an industry that deserves support.

In 1995 the Tories promised to support agriculture. They said in their rural document, "Under a Mike Harris government agriculture will regain its fair share of government support." But since 1995 the government has instead cut agriculture. In the first three years, the Mike Harris government cut $18 million from research, lab and field services; cut $44 million from its own contribution to safety net programs like crop insurance and market revenue, and cut $10 million from marketing and food processing programs.

The Farmers of Ontario calculated that the ministry budget would have to increase by 54% to reach the level it was in 1990 and called on the government to take action, but Mike Harris continued his cuts. How can the Mike Harris government and his party now point to the federal government and preach sanctimoniously about demanding their fair share? Again, how can Mike Harris and the Tory government preach about a federal government and ask for these types of demands?

Farmers across the province were waiting to hear that the government would make a commitment to sending out assistance on the new federal disaster program. We asked questions here in the Legislature about when the government was going to take action and start moving this disaster money to farmers. But instead we got an announcement that sadly adds to the government's sense of a twisted fair share for Ontario farmers.

They announced that all remaining 33 field offices in southern Ontario would be closed and replaced with 13 information offices, 1-800 numbers and Internet access. They announced that government-by-telephone was coming to the farmers. I hope it doesn't operate like the Family Responsibility Office.

We are now six months into a program that was announced by your government, the Healthy Futures program. We have seen nothing about it and there are no details to it.

I don't support this smokescreen by this minister. I do support and demand a fair share by the Ontario government for our farmers in Ontario. I'm afraid today is just another rant and a smokescreen by this Minister of Agriculture.

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I'll tell the minister what we feel in our part of Ontario about the closing of the ag offices: very serious; part of the community.

Also, another very serious problem we have in eastern Ontario-and the minister talks all the time about how he cares about agriculture-is dead livestock removal, which will cause lots of problems with the environment and health care. Some of the people who contract in eastern Ontario tell us that there will be hundreds of dead livestock left in the farms and the fields if the minister doesn't step in and do something about it. One of the local contractors has said that his volume of dead animals has dropped by 70%. He's reduced his staff by 65% and his truck fleet by 65%, and estimates that 15,000 dead animals will be left in eastern Ontario in the next year.

If the minister really cares about agriculture, he should look at that situation, because that's a complaint from all sides of the House.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to express some sympathy for the poor Minister of Agriculture and Food. I want to say to him that I agree with him in part. I think it is atrocious that the federal Liberal government in Ottawa regularly boasts about their surplus but, when it comes to helping farmers in a time of need, they only give the back of the hand. That is truly the tragedy here.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Some of the Liberals don't want to hear this, but they need to acknowledge that this is really what is happening.

The reality is that agriculture in Ontario and agriculture across the country faces an international challenge. The United States is subsidizing their farm economy to the tune of $30 billion a year. The European nations are subsidizing their farm economies even more. Yet there is a failure in Canada, on the part of the federal government, to acknowledge that they have any responsibility to respond and to help Canadian farmers.

After having expressed my sympathy to the poor Minister of Agriculture and Food, I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: You need to clean up your own house first.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Now the Conservatives don't want to hear it. Would you guys get together?

Minister, it is your government that has in effect cut the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in this province by almost $200 million. You have cut the ministry's budget almost in half. When you take into account the rising cost, when you take into account the changes in agriculture, in fact the budget cut is even more than that.

Minister, you cannot, with any credibility, after having cut so much from the agricultural budget in this province, having taken so much from farm communities and rural communities in this province, go and talk to the federal government with any credibility whatsoever. None.

I want to say to you, Minister, it is worse than that. Your record out there in rural Ontario is a record of cutting the basic infrastructure that allows rural communities to thrive and to prosper. When you start cutting the health care facilities, when you come into a community and you threaten to close the community school, when you start cutting the budgets for bridges and roads and the rural infrastructure that allows farmers to get their product to market, you are doing even more damage.

Then when you go out there and close the very agricultural offices that are supposed to be there to provide farmers with information, support and advice, you are sending them a message that, frankly, at the end of the day, you don't care about them.

Minister, by closing the agricultural offices in communities like Dryden and in other more remote parts of the province, you really are saying to those farmers that they don't matter. Telling them that they can have a 1-800 call-let's face the facts of what that means for your government. First, it means 1-800 no answer; then it means 1-800 line busy; then it means 1-800 voice mail; then, at the end, it means 1-800 voice mail, message not returned. That is the reality of your government.

So I say to you, you come forward with a plan to restore the rural infrastructure in this province; you come forward with a plan to restore the funding of the Ministry of Agriculture; you come forward with a plan to provide farmers with the information, advice, science and knowledge they need in an ever more complex agricultural environment, and then you can go to the federal government with some credibility, and I would say the federal government will then have to listen to you.

DEFERRED VOTES

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): It is now time for the deferred votes on the motions by Mr Klees for concurrence in supply. There are 10 of them. There will be one bell.

The division bells rang from 1419 to 1424.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Klees has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. All those in favour will please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time to be recognized.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Klees has moved concurred in supply for the Ministry of Education and Training. Same vote? Agreed? It is agreed.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

In concurrence for supply for the Office of the Premier. Agreed? I heard a no.

The members will please rise one at a time and be recognized.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Deputy Speaker: Those opposed will please rise and be recognized.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

On Mr Klees's motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, same vote? It is agreed.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

On Mr Klees's motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is it agreed? It is agreed.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

On Mr Klees's motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Environment, is it agreed? It is agreed.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Klees has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Health. Same vote? It is agreed.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Klees has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Attorney General. Same vote? It is agreed.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Klees has moved concurrence in supply for the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat. Same vote? It is agreed.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Klees has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Same vote? It is agreed.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 50; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday you introduced your 175-page sledgehammer bill into this Legislature. When we finally got an opportunity to read the bill, we realized just how big a sledgehammer it really is.

Hidden within your mega-bill are sweeping new powers for the Mike Harris cabinet. In particular, in

section 37(1)(

b) you actually give the cabinet the ability to change any law that has been passed by this Parliament. You are reserving unto the cabinet full, complete and absolute authority to change any law behind closed doors, without debate and without this Legislature even having to sit.

Minister, are you so arrogant that you've forgotten it is the people who are in charge and that this Legislature is where the people of this province have their say?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): No, I have not forgotten that at all. Indeed what we are trying to do is initiate a process that will allow for this bill, if passed by this Legislature, to have consequential amendments that affect other pieces of legislation. This is a common problem, particularly because, for instance, if the city of Sudbury is changed to the city of Greater Sudbury, perhaps Sudbury would not be able to have grants under a particular act or law because the name of the city has been changed.

We wouldn't want that to happen, so we are trying to allow for Sudbury, Ottawa, Hamilton and Haldimand-Norfolk to have the same rights under the new legislation as they have under the present legislation. That is the intent of the bill rather than the accusations the honourable member raises.

Mr McGuinty: This provision is, to our knowledge, without precedent in the history of Ontario legislation. It gives full, complete-and I will repeat, full, complete-and absolute authority to the cabinet to make any changes to any laws that the cabinet, in its full and absolute and sole discretion, deems to be worthwhile. That's what this provision says.

This minister has a lot of nerve to stand up and talk about the rights of people. What he's doing, by means of this provision, is robbing them of their rights. You are depriving them of their rights. You are depriving us on this side of the Speaker to debate legislation in this Legislature. What you want to do is preserve for yourself the right to pass laws behind closed doors. There is one word for that; it's called dictatorship.

You were supposed to be the people who were going to stand up for people. Why, Minister, are you appropriating unto yourself the right to pass laws to amend any laws of any kind at any time behind closed doors?

Hon Mr Clement: The short answer to the question is: I'm not. I will read the particular provision for the benefit of the House. It says that we can make regulations providing for "consequential" amendments to any act that, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, are necessary to the effective implementation of this act. If that isn't good enough for the honourable member-

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: I am prepared to give a further undertaking to this House, in addition to the wording in that particular piece of legislation, that this government will introduce legislation in the following session to repeal this clause and to confirm all the uses of this clause by legislation so that it is all done according to the wishes of this House.

Mr McGuinty: You have got to ask yourself what is going on over there on that side of the House. They put together apparently a finely crafted piece of legislation, they put a great deal of forethought into it, and now they decide, upon reflection, that they will first pass this law and then later on, in January, February, March, April, they will pass a second law which will retract this provision.

What we are asking from you, Minister, recognizing now that this is an anti-democratic provision, is that you agree that you will remove this provision today from this bill.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member clearly is enjoying listening to the sound of his own voice rather than the answers that are provided to him. This particular piece of statute is necessary so that the bill can save the municipalities grant monies, save them other rights under legislation-

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, Minister. There is nothing in the rules of this House-

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton East, I'd appreciate your order. Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: This is designed to protect the municipalities, protect their grant structure, protect their rights under current legislation. We make no apologies for that. But we have given you an undertaking, which is duly considered by this government, a legitimate undertaking to ensure that any regulations that are passed under this particular power are sanctioned by the Legislature. They will be sanctioned by the Legislature. You'll have your opportunity to debate it, you'll have your opportunity to discuss it at that time, and that is a good-faith undertaking by this government.

The Deputy Speaker: Question? Who is the question to?

Mr McGuinty: To the same minister, Speaker.

There is another antidemocratic provision found within your bill. There is a provision that allows 75 people in any city or region to thwart the democratic will of the majority. If communities happen to work out a local restructuring solution, a solution which they determine works, that solution can be dismantled by just 75 names on a petition. Seventy-five names on a petition, and apparently you're going to send in a commissioner with a sledgehammer. That commissioner can wipe out a city or a town without even seeking permission from this Legislature.

We've already talked about the other antidemocratic provisions. Here's a second one. You've already cast out on the first. Will you now cast out on the second and will you agree as well to remove this provision from your bill?

Hon Mr Clement: I know the honourable member is trying to distract attention from the fact that he flip-flopped yesterday on his intentions on this bill. I know that's a tough pill for him to swallow, but I would encourage him or his researchers to actually read the legislation. It makes it absolutely clear that that particular provision is designed to ensure that you can have a public debate, you can have a process and that the council that is resisting restructuring, for their own personal interests perhaps, there is a way for the citizenry to get that on the agenda. We make no apologies for that because that is a democratic aspect of this bill of which we are particularly proud.

Mr McGuinty: Let me explain the minister's bill to the minister. You have in your bill a provision which allows any 75 people resident in a community to sign a petition asking that you send in an unelected, unaccountable commissioner to impose a restructuring solution on that community, notwithstanding that that may be against the wishes of the duly elected representatives of the people living in that community. That's what your provision is all about. That is antidemocratic, Minister.

I'm asking you to stand up and yank this provision from your bill, fully recognizing that this is an antidemocratic provision.

Hon Mr Clement: Three points. First, there is nothing in the bill that compels the appointment of a commissioner, so he's wrong. There is nothing in the bill that is antidemocratic, because this is designed to protect and enhance democracy so that the citizenry can have the type of lower taxes and more efficient government they deserve. The third point is, clearly on that side of the House they are not in favour of lower taxes and a more efficient level of government. We on this side of the House are protecting the taxpayer. Who are you trying to protect over on that side of the House? That's what we want to know.

Mr McGuinty: I defy this minister to stand up and tell us how it is in keeping with democratic principles that 75 people can be allowed to sign a petition and compel a commissioner or this minister to impose a restructuring solution on a community. I defy this minister to tell us how that is in keeping with traditional democratic principles that have been articulated and developed century after century after century right across the free world.

You tell me, Minister, why giving authority to 75 people resident in a community to invoke a commissioner who will come and step into that community and impose a restructuring solution on the overwhelming majority and against the express wishes of the elected representatives is in keeping with democracy.

Hon Mr Clement: I'd like the honourable member to tell me something. Show me in the legislation where it is compelling the minister or anyone else to appoint a commissioner. There is no compelling whatsoever and I challenge him to show where in the legislation it does that.

He talks about the rights of the councillors, the rights of the local politicians. Who is protecting the rights of the taxpayers? Who is protecting the taxpayers when the city council or the town council of 10 elected representatives is closing off debate, is closing off the potential for lower taxes?

We are on the side of the people. What side are you on?

IMPERIAL LIFE ASSURANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Since July of this year, Imperial Life Assurance has stopped processing claims or paying any benefits, including medical and prescription drug claims, for over 23,000 Eaton's workers, most of whom live in Ontario. To this date, they refuse to provide official notification to those workers that they're not going to pay and why they're not going to pay.

Workers have died and their families are not receiving insurance benefits. People who rely on prescription medicine, including HIV-positive workers, cannot apply to the Trillium drug plan because they haven't received a formal notice of discontinuance of benefits. There's chaos here: 23,000 workers, most of whom live in Ontario, can't get medical benefits, aren't getting the life insurance they need, while members of their family die.

Can you tell us what you as Minister of Labour have done to help these 23,000 workers, most of whom live in Ontario?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): If you would send me over the documentation, I'll be happy to review the situation. Obviously, if that is the situation, it would seem reasonable to me that we would investigate and examine it. I'll be happy to do that.

Mr Hampton: I'm surprised the minister doesn't know about this, because workers have been evicted form their apartments, workers have been forced to go to food banks. The company has deliberately made it impossible for employees to convert from the group plan to individual coverage with another carrier and they did so in conscious disregard for the guidelines set down by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. In other words, they're saying: "We're going to take advantage of these workers while they're down. We don't care what the guidelines say; we don't care what fairness says." I'm surprised you're not aware of this.

Minister, the Trillium drug plan is under the sponsorship of your government. Would you just do this: Would you require Imperial Life Assurance to at least give those workers who need drug coverage notice so they can go to the Trillium plan and receive the drug coverage that any citizen of Ontario ought to receive? Would you do that?

Hon Mr Stockwell: As I said to the leader of the third party, I'll be happy to review the situation. I understand in certain circumstances there's an individual case. With respect to the 23,000, it is something I'd be happy to review and look into. Any assistance you could provide I would greatly appreciate.

Mr Hampton: I'm pleased to hear that you're willing to do something. Actually, if you really want to know how to help these workers, there was something called the employee wage protection plan. It was in place to help workers who were suddenly put out of work when a major corporate employer went down. Your government cut the employee wage protection plan. If you'd care to put that back in place, that would be a real help.

I'll tell you what more you can do. When these workers wanted to transfer to another insurance carrier for individual coverage so their benefits could be continued, the insurance company refused and your government did nothing. This has been very public. Your government did nothing. You could have brought pressure to bear on the company to at least comply with the Canadian insurance industry guidelines. Would you do that now, Minister?

Hon Mr Stockwell: As the Ministry of Labour, we are compelled to make people comply with the labour laws in this province. We are doing just that. If you have evidence to prove that in fact they're contravening the labour legislation within Ontario, I would be very happy to investigate the situation.

I understand the allegations you've made. They are very serious charges and serious allegations. If you have proof that any of these companies are contravening any labour legislation in Ontario, I give you my undertaking that I will vigorously investigate and vigorously challenge them to meet those guidelines and force them to in that case. But at this point I have not seen any evidence of that. If I can see evidence, or you have evidence, please supply it to me because I'll be happy to investigate it. But until that happens, there are laws of the land that they have to live under.

If they are not living under them, and you have evidence they're not living under them, please give it to me. I will vigorously proceed under that particular act.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have to say, I don't know where the Minister of Labour has been for the last four months.

Minister, I have before me a copy of

section 36(

b) of the act which is going to force amalgamation on Hamilton area municipalities. It says that you can pass regulations providing for consequential amendments to any act that in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council are necessary for effective implementation of the act. Any act, minister.

What this means is that this very public process of law-making, where laws are made in public by the people's representatives, where they are debated in the open, where there is a record kept, you are now as a government going to take behind closed doors where there is no accountability. We don't know who said what. We don't know why it was done. You're not forced to defend your record. This is unprecedented in the history of parliamentary democracy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Question.

Mr Hampton: How do you justify something which runs against all the rules of parliamentary democracy? Do you believe in the divine right of kings, too?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): No, I do not. In fact we have tried to put in a lot of safeguards because I agree with the honourable member, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition, that this is a circumstance that should be used sparingly and very cautiously. That's why it says "consequential amendments" rather than any amendments.

I gave an undertaking on behalf of the government that we would supply a bill that would, in the future, sanctify any changes we do as a result of this particular

section in the legislation. That is the undertaking of myself and of the government that we represent. We are concerned about it as well. It is necessary to protect the rights of citizens and the cities that are the subject of this bill. We make no apologies for trying to ensure the transition is a smooth one, but there should be protections in there and I agree with the honourable member.

Mr Hampton: The minister says this is unusual. This is unprecedented. My God, Third World dictators would be proud of you. Third World dictators would like to have this kind of power. You can go behind closed doors. With a stroke of a pen, you could wipe out legislation. With a stroke of a pen, you could wipe out needed community services. With a stroke of a pen, you can do all those things and you never have to answer to anybody.

Do you realize how far beyond the pale this goes? Do you realize that this is dictatorship? Saying that you're going to come along later, after the fact, and you're going to do away with it, doesn't do away with the fact that it's dictatorship. If you believe in this institution at all, take this clause out of the legislation now. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member bandies about the term "dictatorship" quite freely. Coming from a constituency, I'm sure he has constituents, as well, who have escaped dictatorships. My constituents know the difference between the duly elected government in Ontario and a dictatorship. I encourage him to use his words more sparingly because he cheapens the term "dictatorship" when he uses it in such a cavalier manner.

I know, and this government knows, how important it is to be accountable to the people. That is why we are trying to ensure that citizens are protected under this legislation, that cities' powers and rights and responsibilities are protected under this legislation. That's why we gave an undertaking right here, right now-perhaps he doesn't want yes for an answer, but we gave an undertaking-that we will bring back to this Legislature for debate, for discussion, for a final vote any consequential amendments that have to be made on behalf of the people of the Ontario, and that is our solemn undertaking.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the minister responsible for francophone affairs.

There was a story in today's paper with a headline that reads as follows: "Pourtant ministre des Affaires francophones John Baird se serait opposé au statut bilingue," which loosely translated means, "Even though Minister responsible for francophone affairs John Baird is opposed" to making this new city of Ottawa bilingual.

Francophones across the province of Ontario are today wondering whose side you're on. I'm going to give you the opportunity now to stand in your place and tell us what is the position that you have taken with respect to making the new city of Ottawa bilingual. Are you for that or are you against it? Francophones are exceedingly interested in what you have to say about this.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Those of us on this side of the House have no problem with the new city of Ottawa being bilingual.

Mr McGuinty: What they want to know is, are you working actively on their behalf, with all persons that you might come across, whether in your community, in your caucus or in your cabinet? Are you advocating on behalf of francophones and ensuring that you are doing whatever you possibly can in keeping with the recommendation of this third party, Glen Shortliffe, chosen by your government, who said it's important that we recognize the unique characteristics of the nation's capital and recommended that we have a bilingual city, bilingual where numbers warrant?

Can you provide that assurance to francophones that you're working actively on their behalf and lobbying-and that it's your intention to put forward an amendment, by the way-to ensure that the new city of Ottawa is in fact bilingual where numbers warrant?

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Bob Wood (London West): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Modern developments in manufacturing, including just-in-time inventory, have re-emphasized the vital importance of fully adequate highways for jobs and investment in southwestern Ontario.

Will the minister tell the House what criteria the Minister of Transportation uses to determine whether the capacity of the 401 highway and other superhighways is adequate, and how it prepares forecasts of the future demands on our highways?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): In order to determine the capacity of highways to make sure they are adequate, the MTO considers the numbers and types of vehicles as well as the configuration of the existing highways. Forecasts of future demands are based on historic traffic growth and projected changes in population and economic activity.

Currently we are completing a four-year, $1-billion upgrade to 401, 402 and the QEW. Highway 401 is being widened east towards Port Hope and Highways 11 and 69 are being four-laned. We're keeping our campaign commitment to four-lane the 417 north to Arnprior. We've kept our promise to build 416, the Veterans Memorial Highway. We're spending this year the highest amount on capital spending in this province's history at close to $700 million. We have proven our commitment to the highways and the infrastructure of this province.

Mr Wood: The minister is also aware of the great public concern about safety on a stretch of Highway 401 west of London, where a number of fatalities occurred earlier this year. In September, the minister announced an action plan for safer roads in response to those fatalities. The plan was aimed at highway safety, infrastructure planning and immediate improvements to the 401. Will the minister tell the House what progress has been made on implementing this action plan?

Hon Mr Turnbull: As a result of the action plan for safer roads, I'm pleased to report that 57 kilometres of the total of 114 kilometres of the highway shoulders in southwestern Ontario have already been fully paved with rumble strips. Permanent roadway markers have been installed in 20 kilometres of highway so far. Speed signs have been installed on the 401 near Highgate Road. We will be installing additional signage which will warn people of speeding and also the failure to wear seatbelts.

The Ontario Advisory Group on Safe Driving met last week for the first time, and I'm confident that this broad-ranging group of road-user stakeholders will come forward with useful suggestions.

We're discussing with my counterparts from Michigan needs and alternatives in the Windsor area. We have demonstrated our commitment to highways and infrastructure.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Last June 22, the Minister of Health said that your government had dealt with the emergency room crisis once and for all. Yesterday, ambulances, even those with the most critically ill patients, were being turned away from 10 Toronto hospitals, 15 other hospitals in Toronto were taking only the most seriously ill cases, and ambulance drivers were forced to refuse to take their patients out of town because it would put their patients at risk. Today 17 hospitals were still on emergency redirect as of noon.

Yet this morning the Premier said that this is not really a bad thing. He says he's not sure you could ever fix the problem of the emergency rooms. Minister, do you agree with your Premier that shutting down access to emergency care is just going to be reality in Mike Harris's Ontario?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Obviously, it isn't an optimum situation. Nobody ever wants to see redirect occur or critical care bypass occur. However, redirect is better than not having a system in place to cope with it at all. I do note that she acknowledges today that my figures are slightly different than hers. Mine say that nine out of 25 hospitals in the Toronto area are operating normally today, nine are on redirect and seven are on critical care bypass. So we differ by one hospital, I suppose, in that regard.

I would point out to her that we are taking steps to try to address the situation. This year alone, hospital funding for direct patient care is up by over $400 million; $75 million over two years to allow hospitals to increase beds and ER services. That $75 million has been flowed already this year.

We are doing things to try to alleviate the situation. The ministry has issued guidelines with respect to emergency room facilities. They have an audit procedure to make sure that hospitals are dealing with those guidelines and implementing those guidelines if need be. So we are taking steps to try to improve the situation and, to answer your question, we will continue to take further steps to improve the situation.

Mrs McLeod: Saying that only 16 emergency rooms are on redirect today is like saying that we're making progress because 35% of cancer patients are being seen within an acceptable waiting time. This is what this government is prepared to accept as being inevitable. The fact is that your government has made it worse. That's what emergency room nurses are saying today. Hospital cuts and hospital restructuring have shut down too many beds, and patients are lying on stretchers in emergency rooms because there isn't a bed for them in the hospital.

The crisis is not happening because hospitals are choosing to do elective surgery or because, as the Premier suggested this morning, health workers are taking Christmas holidays. This is a crisis today. Minister, it is going to get worse. Patients are going to die unless your government takes action immediately to deal with this crisis.

Will you go to your cabinet meeting tomorrow and tell the Premier that refusing emergency care to critically ill patients is indeed a crisis, and will you demand that immediate action be taken to open more hospital beds now, as emergency workers are telling you you must?

Hon Mr Eves: We are not blaming other persons for the situation.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: She intimated in her question that we were blaming other people and health care workers. Indeed, we are not doing that. Ontario hospitals will be able to treat-

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. Sometimes when you ask a question you want to hear the answer.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm going to hear it whether you want to or not. Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: Steps are being taken by the government to increase capacity in emergency rooms across the province-$97 million to 50 hospital emergency rooms province-wide to fast-track capital expansions. Ontario hospitals will be able to treat 18% more emergency and ambulatory patients this year than they could in 1995-96, when we assumed office.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Members for Windsor West and Thunder Bay-Atikokan come to order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Windsor West, I'll not warn you again. Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: We are taking steps to improve the situation. Indeed, the situation in this province has dramatically improved from when the following headlines were in place-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Excuse me, no. Elinor Caplan was health minister when these headlines were read: "Two Area Ambulance Drivers Criticize Rerouting Patients from Hospital"; "Elderly Woman Turned Away from Two Area Hospitals Last Week Died Christmas Day"; "It's not uncommon for Ottawa's five major hospitals to redirect ambulances to another hospital when they're busy on serious cases"-etc, all from Elinor Caplan's reign as Minister of Health. To the honourable member, yes, the situation has dramatically improved, no thanks to them or their party.

PROFESSIONAL BOXING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I read this morning the news of the unfortunate death of Stephan Johnson, an American boxer who died from a brain injury received in a fight in New Jersey last month. I understand that this boxer sustained a knockout during a fight in Toronto in April 1999 and as a result was placed on medical suspension from fighting.

Minister, what does the Ontario government do to ensure the safety of professional boxers in the province of Ontario?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for the question. Mr Johnson's death was a real tragedy, compounded by the fact that it shouldn't have happened; it didn't have to happen. As the questioner pointed out, Mr Johnson was in a boxing match in Ontario in April this year when he was knocked out. A knockout in Ontario, which is the strictest jurisdiction in terms of policing professional boxing, qualifies for an automatic suspension. Before that suspension can be lifted, the fighter has to successfully undergo three medical tests.

Mr Johnson had only undergone one test, a CAT scan, I believe, and the suspension hadn't been lifted at the time he was involved in a fight in New Jersey and suffered that fatal injury.

Mr Galt: Thank you for that answer about ensuring professional fighting is indeed well regulated in Ontario. Certainly safety in the ring was always of great concern to me. That was one of the many reasons why I never got into a boxing ring myself. It's also one of the reasons I didn't get into basketball as well.

Interjection: What are you in now?

Mr Galt: Trouble.

Minister, this boxer was suspended by the Ontario athletics commissioner. He should not have been permitted to fight until he was medically fit to do so. What can the government do to make sure that other jurisdictions make safety the number one priority in boxing and respect our suspensions?

Hon Mr Runciman: Suspension in Ontario is communicated to other boxing commissions throughout North America. All the medical suspensions are posted on what they call a fight facts registry. Regrettably, United States jurisdictions are not required to uphold suspensions imposed in other countries. In this instance, obviously, they ignored the Ontario suspension.

I am writing to the athletic commissions in the three US states where Mr Johnson was allowed to fight while under Ontario suspension, asking them to honour our medical suspensions for safety reasons. Making sports safe for participants is Ontario's number one priority.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : J'ai une question pour M. Baird, le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

Ma question au ministre est très clair : Vous avez deux différents textes, un texte le matin quand vous parlez aux journalistes, et un texte totalement différent quand on vous pose la question à la Chambre. À qui pouvons-nous nous fier, les francophones en Ontario, si vous ne parlez pas pour nous ?

M. Bisson : Ma question est encore au ministre, sur votre crédibilité. Vous avez deux différents dictons. Vous parlez un langage quand vous êtes en dehors de l'Assemblée, quand vous répondez aux journalistes. Vous avez dit que vous êtes un peu nerveux avec la question puis la notion d'offrir des services là où les nombres le justifient. Mais ici à l'Assemblée, vous nous dites quelque chose un peu différent.

Après ça, l'affaire qui m'inquiète vraiment, c'est que vous avez dit même juste jeudi, et je répète, que « Nous ne voulons pas une bande de juges, de bureaucrates, couper des cheveux en quatre sur une définition » quand on vous a posé la question. S'il n'y avait pas eu la capacité de la communauté francophone d'aller devant les juges, on aurait perdu l'hôpital Montfort.

WORKFARE

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. For the last two years the regional government of Ottawa-Carleton has been extremely successful at finding permanent jobs for welfare recipients. An average of 800 welfare recipients a month have found permanent work this way. Meanwhile, your workfare plan has averaged about 500 people a month in temporary placements, and we all know where some of that leads.

Last week you announced new workfare quotas. The permanent jobs that are found by the region for their welfare recipients will not be counted in your workfare quotas. This will punish the region for being successful with their placement program.

In order to meet your new quotas, they will have to stop helping people to get off welfare. They will have to let them collect welfare and place a few of them in workfare programs. All of this, so that your numbers for your workfare program won't be so embarrassing. I ask you, why are you trying to prevent the region from getting permanent jobs for people on welfare?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for the question. This government strongly believes in helping move people from welfare to work. It has been one of our fundamental priorities as a government. To date we have seen more than 462,000 people move from the welfare rolls, and we've seen substantial growth in job creation, with more than 600,000 jobs created.

What we believe is that a whole series of supports are needed to provide people with that transition from welfare to work. Through workfare and community placements, through earnfare, through learnfare, we have a substantial number of people taking a variety of supports to help them. What we're saying is that workfare has got to be part of that equation.

The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has a $4-million surplus in welfare this year. They are laying off case workers. If they feel they need additional resources to help people participate in community placement, we're certainly open to receiving requests through a $10-million community innovation fund.

Mr Patten: Minister, you're not answering the question. I asked you how come you're jeopardizing and penalizing Ottawa-Carleton when they are creating jobs.

Interjection.

Mr Patten: They are so. He says it's silly. Listen to what the social services commissioner of Ottawa-Carleton says: "When I have an opportunity to get somebody a real job, I'm going to bypass the community placement," which is your workfare program because "that's the most effective thing for our clients. It's a good poverty reduction strategy and it's the best thing for the taxpayers of Ontario." That is the commissioner of social services for the region.

Interjection.

Mr Patten: Why? Because he's penalized going your way. Why won't you look at the formula? At least agree to look at the formula and see that it's prejudicial and is punishing Ottawa-Carleton for getting good jobs. Will you look at it?

Hon Mr Baird: I have certainly sat down with officials and heard this concern. We believe you can do both. You can help people move from welfare to work and you can also help those others. More than 85% of people can take the avenue the region wants to take this year, with only a 15% goal to help take community placement.

Our party believes you can't leave anyone behind. We're not prepared to say that 85% of people can just sit there and wait while they take care of 15%. We have some significant differences on welfare reform. We want to help people move from welfare to work. Your party believes in a welfare reform policy written by an insurance adjuster. You just want to write people off and leave people behind. We don't believe in that policy. We believe you've got to provide supports to help people move from welfare to work, and we're going to continue to work to provide that support.

PREMIER'S RESEARCH EXCELLENCE AWARD

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Recently I attended a ceremony at Trent University in honour of Dr James Parker. Dr Parker was recognized for his outstanding research and will be receiving a Premier's Research Excellence Award for his work. It was not too long ago that another world-class researcher from Trent University, Dr Holger Hintelmann, also received that honour. Can you elaborate on the Premier's Research Excellence Award and tell us a little bit more about it and how it works?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The Premier's Research Excellence Awards is a $75-million program, the first of its kind in Canada for a province and the first of its kind, certainly, in Ontario.

As part of this jobs cabinet and this jobs government, we are aiming to recession-proof ourselves and do the best we can in this province to get through the lows that may come from time to time in our economy. What we've focused on is research and development and particularly our young researchers, so each of our 128 recipients of the Premier's Research Excellence Award receives $150,000. That money is some of the largest money given out in this country to individual researchers. It's used to attract more expert researchers to their teams, like Dr Parker and Dr Hintelmann.

Tonight, for example, the Premier will host, the first of its kind here in Ontario, an awards dinner to recognize the 128 excellent researchers in all areas of scientific endeavour who have applied for the program. It's a tremendous way for us to stop the brain drain, to turn it into a brain gain. More than just money is needed in research; we also have to recognize these talented young people so that they'll stay in Ontario and bring to us the great discoveries that will help us improve our quality of life here and around the world.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister, and there's absolutely no doubt after being involved with this twice. It also suggests the type of university and the type of researchers and faculty that Trent University in my riding has, and this certainly has a very long-range ripple effect. I know that Dr Parker's project was in emotional intelligence and mental and physical health, and that Dr Hintelmann's work is in chemistry and environmental and resource studies. What other areas of research are covered under this award?

Hon Mr Wilson: All areas of legitimate scientific endeavour are able to apply for the award, but specifically the Premier's Research Excellence Award concentrates on physical, natural and life sciences, engineering, mathematics, health sciences and environmental sciences.

I think Dr Hintelmann's work from the Trent University is a very good example of the type of excellent research that is being conducted in this province. He is specifically looking at the relationship between atmospheric mercury deposits and mercury concentrations in fish. The research will determine the contribution of atmospheric mercury emissions to the high levels of mercury that are observed in many fish. It's breakthrough work that Dr Hintelmann is doing. Dr Parker's work is breakthrough work in the area of intelligence, and there are 126 other recipients tonight of the Premier's Research Excellence Award.

I hope members will take the time to congratulate those recipients who are from their ridings. They deserve your recognition, they deserve your support and they are our future. I know the honourable member from Peterborough is very proud, as he should be, of the recipients from his area of the province and I hope all members will join us in that recognition.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is for the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. Two years ago the Harris government created the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Two years ago-

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I need the name of a ministry.

Mr Smitherman: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Smitherman: Two years ago the Harris government created the Greater Toronto Services Board. Since then the GTSB has struggled to find a consensus on any given issue. This past Friday the Greater Toronto Services Board finally reached a consensus. Indeed the board voted 58 to one, and what was the issue that unified municipal politicians from Stouffville to Caledon, from Whitby and Ajax to Mississauga and to Milton? It was the Oak Ridges moraine. They united behind a demand to freeze new development on the Oak Ridges moraine until the province has a comprehensive policy in place to protect this environmentally sensitive land.

I ask the Minister, will you listen to the board your government created and freeze new development on the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question. He was in my riding a few days ago. I hope you had a good time in Brampton West-Mississauga and I hope you learned a little bit about the issues that are out there.

With respect to the question, I would disagree with the honourable member. I think the Greater Toronto Services Board has found a lot of consensus on other issues such as transit and the need to have an integrated transit plan, which is precisely why the board was set up in the first place, so they're moving on with the job and I congratulate them on that.

With respect to the issue the honourable member has raised, there was a motion passed. We have a bit of a disagreement in terms of

interpretation. I think the essence of the motion, as I read it, was that they were interested in a policy statement rather than a freeze. I would encourage the honourable member to correct the record for this House in terms of the tenor of the motion. At that time, I'd be happy to answer the question.

Mr Smitherman: It seems that the minister is mistaken. While the minister writes letters supporting unsustainable development, pristine wilderness lands and freshwater resources are being lost forever. The solution is clear. We have said so, Uxbridge has said so, Durham region has said so, the GTA mayors and chairs have said so and now the Greater Toronto Services Board, a body created by your own government, has said so. This is what they moved:

"The Greater Toronto Services Board urges the province of Ontario to ensure that no more approvals be given to proposed development or aggregate applications going through the process for six months in the Oak Ridges moraine, and that during that period the province, in collaboration with the regions, prepare a policy statement for the Oak Ridges moraine."

Freeze development on the moraine until you have a comprehensive plan in place. That's what they said. I ask the minister again: Will he stand up for ordinary Ontarians instead of developers and implement a policy to save and not pave the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Mr Clement: That the honourable member's caucus is interested in this issue is astounding, considering their complete lack of sophistication and interest in this issue before.

But I would say to the honourable member that any resolution that is passed by the GTSB or its constituent municipalities is something of interest to this government. We are willing to take that information, and we will take it seriously. We will examine it, and we will make sure that it is consistent with the public policy objectives, which I think the honourable member and I share. We are all looking for ways to ensure that we have sustainable water supplies and sustainable environmental controls. So environmental preservation is our top priority, along with the fact that the way you get environmental preservation is to have prosperity, growth, jobs and opportunity.

The honourable members on the other side are so good at saying, "We want to freeze development; we want to freeze prosperity."

The Deputy Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Clement: On this side of the House, we are looking for solutions that guarantee prosperity as well as an environmental record of which we can all be proud. This is what we on this side of the House stand for.

MOHAWK RACEWAY

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Minister, as you know, Mohawk Raceway is located in my riding, the great riding of Halton, and was long considered to be one of the premier standardbred horse racing tracks in North America.

Since its opening in 1963, championship horses, such as Cam Fella, Matts Scooter, Peace Corps and Canada's 1996 co-Horses of the Year, Riaydh and When U Wish Upon A Star, have all raced at Mohawk's track, along with an under-recognized but terrific little horse called Dr Charlotte W. raised at Mohawk and named after Charlotte Whitton, former mayor of Ottawa. These horses have been driven by some of the greatest drivers in Canada, who now call Halton their home: Steve Conlon, Rick Zenon-

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Question?

Mr Chudleigh: -Ron Waples-great drivers.

Minister, can you tell me if you've had any feedback from the horse racing industry on how this has affected the industry as a whole?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): That's an excellent question from the member from Halton. Yes, I'm pleased to report to the House and to the member that we've received a lot of very positive feedback from the horse racing industry in Ontario. As you know, under previous governments' policies of overtaxation, the horse industry in Ontario was facing a lot of competition and not faring very well against other jurisdictions in North America.

But the feedback we've gotten because of the implementation of slot machines and the decrease in the tax rate is that we have a real increase in horse racing activity in this province. We've seen activity in ownership of horses increasing. Top stallions are returning from the United States back to Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Leading owners are indicating that they may even be moving their stables and farms to Ontario next year instead of the United States, and new farms are being built. We're restoring this industry to its historical ranking of being the best in the world.

Mr Chudleigh: That's great news for my constituents in Halton. I have been hearing that this initiative, the addition of slot machines, has been very successful for Mohawk Raceway. Attendance figures are rising. Horse wagering is up 27%. Purse levels have increased 10% from this time last year.

I had the opportunity to attend the Breeders' Cup earlier this year, in October, and some of the finest trotters and pacers from all of North America were there to entertain and to compete for some very serious purses. It's great once again to see the parking lot at Mohawk Raceway full.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr Chudleigh: Minister, given that Mohawk is the economic stimulant for many Milton-area farmers and other businesses, can you tell the residents of Milton how this increase in revenues for the industry will benefit the agricultural sector and the rest of Ontario's taxpayers?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'd be glad to. This initiative has been good news for all of Ontario, in particular rural Ontario. It has greatly assisted the agricultural economy. As members in this House would know, and those outside this House should know, horseracing is the third-largest contributor to the agricultural economy in this province. They purchase $18 million annually in supplies from the agri-food business. So that's a great news announcement for rural Ontario.

But the whole province benefits as well from this initiative of creating over 7,000 new jobs in the province of Ontario, as well as being able to give $100 million to charities throughout Ontario to help those worthy causes. There's also $10 million annually to be invested into addiction research and programs, and 5% for the host municipality. I think it's a win-win situation for the people of Ontario, especially rural Ontario.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Because cancer treatment centres in southern Ontario can't accommodate the waiting list for cancer patients, your government pays the full cost of transportation, accommodation and meals for cancer patients who have to go to the Thunder Bay cancer treatment centre.

Donna Graham is a cancer patient from Pickle Lake, Ontario. She has to drive a total of 1,100 kilometres to get to Thunder Bay for treatment of cancer. She has to pick up costs of transportation, meals and hotel. Your government will not cover her to the same benefit as a cancer patient from southern Ontario.

Minister, don't you believe that she should receive the same benefit? Is she somehow a second-class citizen as a cancer patient from northern Ontario?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I don't believe that any patient should be a second-class patient in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Deputy Premier, that is the reality. For her to fly from Pickle Lake to Thunder Bay on a Monday for cancer treatment and go home again on Friday would cost $518. The northern health travel grant won't come anywhere near that in terms of its funding support. If she has to stay overnight in a hotel, she has to pick up that cost, $70 a night. She also has to pick up the food costs for that. Yet your government pays all the costs for a cancer patient-Patient X-flying from Toronto.

Why the difference, Deputy Premier? They're both suffering from cancer. They both need cancer treatment. For one patient you pay the full costs, all of the travel costs. The other patient has to find money out of their pocket to cover the cost of transportation and accommodation, and sometimes they don't have it. Sometimes they have to drive 1,000 kilometres over an icy highway because they don't have the money to cover airfare. Why the difference? Why are some cancer patients treated much better than other cancer patients by your government, Minister?

Hon Mr Eves: I'll refer this supplementary to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As I've said before in this House, it's this government's intention to ensure that people across Ontario, and importantly northern Ontario, have access to health care services close to home, and it's certainly our strategy to improve access in areas across the northwest and northeast so they can get services in the hospitals close by.

If the member wants to pass the details on the individual to me, I can refer that to the Ministry of Health to ensure that people get access to care as quickly as possible and are treated on a fair basis. My understanding is that Cancer Care Ontario, with respect to cancer patients who need treatment soon, has the authority to move those patients to where they can get treatment the best way possible and as quickly as possible to ensure that they have that important access to radiation therapy so they can come back into good physical condition as soon as possible. So I invite the member opposite to do such.

Again, this government remains committed to ensuring that patients across Ontario, and importantly northern Ontario, get access to the best possible quality care as close to home as possible.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Speaker: In order to be able to perhaps get to some form of public hearings on Bill 25, I seek unanimous consent to proceed with Bill 25 notwithstanding the printing requirements of the standing orders.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it agreed? It is not agreed.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Do you think the people of Ontario are stupid, or what, Norm? Do you think they're going to buy that garbage?

The Deputy Speaker: I'd ask the member for Sudbury to talk properly.

VISITOR

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Speaker: I wanted to draw the attention of all members to the fact that we have a very distinguished visitor here today. The Prime Minister of Burma, in exile, is visiting us today. I'm sure all members would want to pass along our respects and our congratulations to him.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if the Chair can inform the House when Bill 25 will be printed.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Speaker cannot speculate on your wondering.

Mr Duncan: Mr Speaker, I have a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: A different point of order?

Mr Duncan: I seek unanimous consent of the House to ask the government House leader when Bill 25 will be printed and available for members of the Legislature and the public to read. I wonder if we'll know when that-

The Deputy Speaker: It's OK.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On the point of order-

The Deputy Speaker: I don't take debate on points of order.

Is there consent? No, there's not consent.

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Speaker: The bill was produced yesterday and given to the opposition members. It has been widely printed.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Sterling: Can you not make other copies? Go to your photocopier.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I observe that the Prime Minister thought it was better to get back to Burma than to put up with this.

If there are two of us standing up and I'm one of them, the other one's out of order.

The time for petitions has arrived.

Mr Duncan: I seek unanimous consent to have agreement that the House sit beginning January 3 to consider Bill 25 in public hearings.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: It is not agreed.

I think this debate would be much better carried within the rules, and the rules have that it will go in rotation under certain periods of time. So rather than just debating it back and forth, I'd like to bring us within the rules of the House. Right now, the rules of the House say we should have petitions.

PETITIONS

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): J'ai devant moi une pétition à présenter devant l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario. Elle se lit comme suit :

"Whereas the oath of office for deputy judge (under the Courts of Justice Act, 1984)

"`I .... do solemnly swear that I will faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the duties of a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court of Ontario. So help me God.'

"Whereas lawyers representing clients are causing an alarming conflict of interest;

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

"1. The oath of office should include the word `impartiality.'

"2. Only lay people should represent themselves or be represented by lay people. Lawyers should be prohibited to represent clients at small claims court."

This is a petition that I offer.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposures to sexually explicit material;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I have also signed the petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have more petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographic locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to: acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

This is signed by literally hundreds of my constituents.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licencing fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario."

This is signed by a number of residents from Blenheim, Tilbury and Chatham and I affix my name to it.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition here that reads like this:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

I am in full agreement with this, and I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I continue to receive petitions from Cathy Walker, who is the director of health and safety department of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, on behalf of their tens of thousands of Ontario members. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances (carcinogens);

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens;

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances in work;

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

On behalf of my NDP caucus colleagues, I add my name to those of these petitioners.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a rather lengthy petition. I'll read it in part.

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the effluent coming from the commercial alcohol ethanol plant is creating a noxious smell in the former city of Chatham, in the municipality of Chatham-Kent, which has a nauseating impact on the citizens who breathe it in;

"Whereas the citizens of Chatham have repeatedly brought this problem to the attention of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the former MPP for Chatham-Kent;

"Whereas the former MPP for Chatham-Kent and the Ministry of the Environment indicated that Commercial Alcohols was given and eight-month period to correct the problem, which time elapsed on July 1999, and the problem has not been remedied;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the measures contained in regulation 346 of the Environmental Protection Act be immediately enforced on Commercial Alcohols Inc to ensure that the citizens of Chatham and surrounding area have fresh air to breathe, free from the noxious odours that are spewed by the ethanol plant located on Bloomfield Road in the westerly outskirts of the former city of Chatham in the municipality of Chatham-Kent, and we ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I affix my signature to this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 6, 1999, on the motion for second reading of Bill 23,

An Act to amend certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in relation to supporting and managing the health care system / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée en ce qui concerne le soutien et la gestion du système de soins de santé.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Questions and comments on Mr Conway's speech of yesterday?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I actually rise to continue the debate. I know we are in the session for two-minute questions and comments. Not having been here yesterday to hear Mr Conway's comments-I'm sure they were quite interesting and eloquent, as Mr Conway often is-obviously I can't respond directly to what Mr Conway said.

I look forward to continuing debate today on Bill 23,

An Act to amend certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in relation to supporting and managing the health care system. More specifically, I look forward to addressing the whole subject matter which Bill 23 allows us to properly continue, which is of course hospital restructuring. We've been on a four-year process to restructure the hospital sector in Ontario. Granted, it has not been an easy process over the past four years. There has been some upheaval in the hospital sector across the province and in those areas where the restructuring commission has been.

I might add that I think it's important to note the opposition seems to lead people to think this bill expands the ministry's authority outside of those areas that have been restructured, and it's not the case. In fact this bill only applies to those communities-I believe there were 22-across the province where the restructuring commission had been. Those include Brant county and Essex county, London, Waterloo and Niagara, which is my own county. I look forward to talking about the restructuring debate, especially as it relates to my riding. That's an important point.

We must all remember that this bill pertains to those 22 communities in which the restructuring commission has issued an order.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I want to conclude my remarks, which in the main were made last night, to thank those people who have offered some opinions in response by simply summarizing my main concerns. We have before us today Bill 23, which essentially, in

part III, transfers the directive-making and related powers for the merger and closure and other changes to public hospitals that previously belonged with the Health Services Restructuring Commission to the minister.

I want to conclude by highlighting the points I was trying to make last night. It was three years ago that, under the Harris government, a commission came to my community and ordered the nearly 100-year-old Pembroke Civic Hospital closed. They did so on the basis of so-called professional analysis that said all of the hospital-related services were to be consolidated at the site of the Pembroke General for a cost estimated to be $5 million. Less than three years later the estimated cost of the actual renovation is four and a half, nearly five times as great, now estimated at nearly $24 million.

Our local share under the best scenario has risen from $1.5 million to nearly $8 million. That is a huge burden being imposed on our community, Pembroke and area, by the Harris government.

The analysis appears to have been deeply flawed, the injury significant. The upset and the stress in the hospital and health services delivery system in Pembroke and area is palpable.

To whom do we go for redress? The action was decisive, the fallout even more so, and largely in the negative. There are huge financial and health delivery problems associated with this.

I stand here and say that the people of Pembroke and area expect and will demand that the Harris government, which has been the architect of this disaster, will come forward with some extraordinary assistance to alleviate not only the financial but the health and hospital-related stress and problems caused therefrom.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Maves: I'm glad to rise today to speak to Bill 23. I look forward to speaking mostly about the restructuring of our hospital sector and how this bill allows that restructuring to continue.

I might add at the outset that there are many people in the hospital community. Actually I remember, just before the campaign started, the Liberal Party put out a red book and made an announcement that they were going to review all decisions by the restructuring commission. In actual fact, after four years of hard work by district health councils all across the province and by the restructuring commission, that announcement was met with quite a bit of concern because people in the hospital community, the district health councils around the province, as I said, had worked so hard. There had been upheaval.

Change is always difficult-we understand that-and a lot of people in the hospital community said: "No, let's not do that. We've made so much progress; it would be absolutely crazy to roll back all the successful work that's been done." I think that's very instructive. That was something that came out of a lot of people in the hospital community.

I note that there are some very supportive quotes from people from the hospital community. The CEO from the Sudbury Regional Hospital, Joseph De Mora, is quoted as saying, "I appreciate that your government had the courage to undertake long-overdue restructuring and ask you that you retain these powers to complete this important initiative." Those powers are those that we're talking about today and are included in Bill 23.

So there is someone from the Sudbury Regional Hospital, which had a great deal of debate in their community over the changes that were being made, that were advised by the hospital restructuring commission and are being made in the Sudbury area. But there is someone who is very supportive.

And there are others: David MacKinnon, the CEO for the Ontario Hospital Association. He wrote and said, "The minister needs to retain the authority to revise the restructuring commission directions in order to reflect patient care needs over time, new technology, opportunities to use new technology and other factors affecting patient care in communities across Ontario.

So again, this is David MacKinnon, the CEO from the Ontario Hospital Association, saying, "Yes, we understand the need for this bill; we understand the need for the minister to retain these powers so that this very difficult but very vital restructuring component can continue."

I want to go back and talk about that restructuring process and probably talk mostly about my area of the province, the Niagara area, which of course encompasses the Niagara region of 400,000 people. We have 12 municipalities, plus the regional government. That's 13 municipal governments and 130 municipal officials, but 12 communities. I believe we have 10 hospitals in those communities.

Our district health council started many years ago. I believe the order actually came from the NDP government, and I think it was a responsible move by the previous government. They asked the district health councils throughout the province to get together and look at the hospital services in their catchment areas, as we like to call them. Our catchment area is the Niagara region.

The district health councils, people watching at home should know, are just laymen from everyday walks of life, people who have nothing to do directly with hospitals. They are doctors, nurses, CEOs of hospitals, a broad cross-section of business people and labour people, people outside of the hospital sector who may just use it as consumers, residents of a catchment area, and then of course there are many people from the health care communities.

District health councils, at the behest of the previous government, set about to do reports on what changes should come about in the hospital sectors in each of their catchment areas. This was a long and difficult process. There were lots of public hearings. I believe in the Niagara region there were over 300 people who participated in the Niagara District Health Council reports. The district health council-I believe Bob Welch Jr was actually the chair of that committee-put out an initial report, which actually called for the closure or downsizing of several of the smaller hospitals in the region.

After the first report, they went out and had some more hearings. When they had subsequent hearings in some of those areas, where the local district health council called for closures or severe downsizing of some of those more remote hospitals in my region, they got a lot of people who showed up at those meetings. Some people were obviously quite upset. They didn't want to see a hospital that maybe they had been born in and their kids had been born in and that had looked after some of their health care needs throughout their lives-they didn't want to see that brick and mortar lost. A lot of people showed up.

But, very bravely, Mr Welch and the rest of the district health council came forward with the final report.

Based on that final report, the province-wide health restructuring commission later came down to the Niagara region and did a similar study. They didn't take as much time. They did have quite a bit of public input and they based a lot of their report on the district health council report. They made several changes to our system. Some of the very important changes that they recommended and that this province is carrying through with were additional services for our region. Most notably, probably, a new cancer care centre, which we're all looking forward to, is going to come to the region.

Right now our patients must go to Hamilton for that service. Similarly, we have mental health beds that our constituents have to go to Hamilton for, but those 57 beds, I believe, will be repatriated and brought back down to the Niagara region; and the cancer care centre will be built in Niagara. These are some of the important additional services the health restructuring commission ordered.

One of the most important things the restructuring commission is bringing to health services in my area is it's asking eight of the 10 hospitals to work together under one board. I think this is a fantastic recommendation. We've got great buy-in into this recommendation by most of the hospital community in the Niagara region. Everyone who works in the hospital sector agrees with this.

Over the years, we had developed two hospitals in St Catharines, one in Niagara Falls, one in Welland and one in Fort Erie. Over the years, hospitals were funded in Ontario is they worked from historic-based budgets. They serve a certain group of clientele, a certain catchment area in each hospital and over the years, historically, they had been funded by the Ministry of Health. They had a historic-based budget that was adjusted on an annual basis for a variety of things.

Maybe a hospital would decide to buy a new piece of equipment and then offer a new service, and the Ministry of Health would agree to pay for the operational component of that new service. That's how budgets went. Quite frankly, the way we developed our hospital system in Ontario was really quite a hodgepodge of services.

Even in my region itself, with only 400,000 people, it was quite a hodgepodge of services. Some hospitals could decide to discontinue delivering some services; some added services. We had some of the smaller hospitals where people from that community would go to the hospital and check into the emergency department and their own family doctor would come to see them or the doctor on duty would see them and then package them off somewhere else. Those people would then go to Welland or Niagara Falls or St Catharines General or Hotel Dieu, bigger hospitals in the region, to get the service that maybe wasn't available at the smaller centre.

The question that came into play was, should we continue to offer very few services at some of these outlying hospitals and spend the money on the heat, the hydro and the janitorial services and so on for keeping those hospitals open which aren't really offering a lot of services? Or should we maybe take that money and send it in to those other hospitals-the Greater Niagara General, the Welland hospital, the St Catharines General hospital-and actually pay for more services? The underpinning of all the health council reports and the restructuring commission report was, "Let's look at spending less money on bricks and mortar, taking that money and reinvesting it into services."

Now, with one board-this is where I started. It's a topic where we can go on and on at some length. Where we started was with one board. We often had problems in our area of boards that didn't co-operate very well and health care administrations from hospital to hospital within my region that didn't co-operate very well. They didn't coordinate. If I couldn't get surgery in one hospital, the doctor would like that surgery to be booked in another hospital, but things got in the way between those administrations and that wouldn't come off. That affected patient care.

Emergency services, the same thing. We were redirecting. We started pouring some more money into emergency care services and we put strings on that money to make sure that each hospital spent it on emergency care services. We would have one hospital that wouldn't want to dip into that pool of money, perhaps, and would more quickly go on redirect or critical bypass and let those patients, maybe from St Catharines, be taken down to Niagara Falls for service.

Once Niagara Falls found out that St Catharines hospitals were on redirect, maybe they weren't in a situation quite yet to be on redirect but they might not want to take in those patients, so they would go on redirect. It was not a positive situation.

One of the best things that has happened is we will have one administration. This administration will coordinate all health care for all Niagara residents. We'll be better able to allocate patients to the right emergency centre. Regardless of what municipality the person is from, they will be directed to the right facility in cases of emergency. We'll be able to better

schedule surgeries. In fundraising, instead of competing with one another, we'll have common goals to raise money for certain machinery that everyone in the region can utilize and benefit from. So for a variety of reasons I think this is wo