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

November 25, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

SENATE OF CANADA

CANCER TREATMENT

SENATE OF CANADA

CANCER TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE

TVO FUND-RAISING

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

HEALTH CARE

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

OKTOBERFEST WOMEN OF THE YEAR

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

JOE BELCOT

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

WILLIAM ERSKINE JOHNSTON

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

CANCER TREATMENT

INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTING

ECONOMY OF NIAGARA REGION

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

TENANT PROTECTION

HATS FOR HUNTERS

PHOTO-RADAR

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

RETAIL SALES TAX

ASSISTIVE DEVICES

TAXATION

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA GESTION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE DE LA CONSTRUCTION

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES ENTENTES PORTANT SUR L'EXTRACTION D'EAU

TIME ALLOCATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENATE OF CANADA

Mr Perruzza moved private member's notice of motion number 31:

That, in the opinion of this House, this Parliament should call upon the new federal government to abolish the Senate of Canada.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes to make his presentation. Mr Perruzza.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Speaker, I am before you and the rest of the chamber here today to essentially ask for your support to communicate to the new federal government in Ottawa that I think the Senate, in the development of this great country of ours called Canada, has indeed outlived its usefulness, if in fact it ever had any.

We'll have to go into our history and our development a little bit to look at the rationales for setting up the Senate of Canada. If you go right back to over a century and a quarter ago, during the debate the reason for setting up the Senate was essentially to try to strike, in at least one of the chambers of government, some regional representation and some sharing of power between the more populous, wealthier provinces and some of the less populated, less wealthy provinces. In fact, one of our Fathers of Confederation -- we all know him well -- Sir John A.

Macdonald, during this whole debate when they were going back and forth and trying to figure out how Canada was going to be governed, declared:

"There would be no use for an upper House if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the lower House. It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body."

Having quoted extensively, this was the reason for setting up the Senate in the way it was. Initially, it was set up with 72 members. Then, with the inclusion of some other provinces, the membership went up to 96, always of course with a regional appropriation, which gets to be quite cloudy and hazy as you track the development of the institution over time, then to 104, and finally and lately to 112, which is very interesting.

It's important to look at especially the last development. We all know when that happened and when that occurred. During the Mulroney years in government, the federal Conservative government wanted to introduce the GST. It being the kind of nasty, ill-conceived, bitter-biting, economy-ruining tax that it was and is, and since Mulroney and the Conservatives had an overwhelming majority in the lower House, the elected representative House of Commons, and the Liberals had the majority in the Upper House, which was then the Senate, the Liberal senators began to tinker with that whole process.

They were considering possibly not passing or not consenting to this ill-conceived, ill-contrived, nasty, economy-ruining tax known as the GST.

What did he do? He said: "I'm going to take back the majority in the upper House. I'm going to use an unusual authority." Many scribes and many experts had earlier suggested that perhaps that authority didn't exist, and he said: "Absolutely not. They're thwarting or trying to thwart the elected representative authority of the lower House. I won't allow it. I believe I have the right not to allow it and therefore I shall ask the Queen to expand the numbers of the Senate, appoint a few Conservative people to the upper House and take back the majority so that the GST can and will proceed."

In fact, that's exactly what he did, and the number went to 112. Then all of a sudden, lo and behold, what happens is, and I believe these numbers are as current as you can get them, you have 54 Progressive Conservatives in the upper House, 52 Liberals, four independents, a Liberal Independent and a Reformer, totalling 112.

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: And then we got the GST. So, in effect, what you have happening is -- the rationale for why the Senate was created -- that after almost 125 years it was about to flex its muscles and say: "Sir John A. Macdonald said we had some authority. We're going to exercise it for a change." What happens? Bang, they don't exercise it any more and there's essentially no change.

Throughout its history it's cost us a lot of money. Most senators are there pretty well their whole lives. They're political appointments, and you only need to look at the breakdown to see that. Since we've had only Conservative and Liberal governments federally, they're mostly all Progressive Conservatives or Liberals. There are very few others, if any at all. It seems to be the patronage plum of government.

So what happens and where are we now? We've tried on a number of occasions to reform the Senate and say it should have some authority. Some people say it should be elected. In fact, there have been a number of processes set up to try to figure out what we could do to make it regionally representative and to some degree accountable to the people of Canada, but what you have happening is that there's a political tussle. Every region and everyone seems to feel that during the reform exercise they should gain a little more authority. Not being able to gain more power through a reform process, what do you have happen?

Essentially nothing. If nothing happens, you preserve the status quo. And what's the status quo? We have this elaborate institution with 112 members with staff and perks and all the other things that go with these kinds of positions. What does it do? It does essentially nothing.

Interjection: Could you spell that?

Mr Perruzza: It does nothing. My colleague asks, "How do you spell 'nothing'?" Most people out there know how to spell "nothing." They know what "nothing" means and what it does. What it does is cost us an awful lot of money to sustain.

This is why I'm before you and this chamber today to ask for your support, because we know what will soon happen. We have a new federal government. We have a federal Liberal government but the Conservatives have the majority in the Senate. So what will happen? I'll tell you what will happen. Prime Minister Chrétien is going to have to go out, find a few Liberals tucked away somewhere, probably people who have been bagmen for the party, and try to appoint them to the Senate to take back his majority. I say that is unfair and it should be done away with.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I actually don't welcome the opportunity to speak on this this morning, for one reason: I have been very critical over the years of this Legislature dealing with matters which are clearly outside its jurisdiction. I think it's a complete waste of time when members of any political party under any circumstances bring forward issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the Legislature of the province of Ontario.

On many occasions I go into secondary schools to speak to students and try to talk about the delineation of powers in the three levels of government, in some cases the four levels when you have two municipal levels of government. What happens is, the questions that get directed to me are often questions which have nothing to do with the provincial government.

I try to explain to the students that my views on federal issues or municipal issues are not the views that should count in terms of their evaluation of my position as a provincial member of Parliament. For instance, they'll ask, "What do you think of capital punishment?" because that is a matter that may be of some interest. But this Legislature has no power over the issue of capital punishment.

I think political representatives do a disservice to people they represent when they start talking about issues, particularly in this House and particularly in this hour, that have absolutely nothing to do with the Ontario Legislature. It's probably happened with members of all three parties in this House. I may even have, on some occasions in years gone by, discussed issues, not in this period but at other times, that are outside the jurisdiction of this House.

There are some that impact on the House; they are interprovincial. I do have some acceptance of that, that when there is an interprovincial component, it's important that this Legislature be dealing with the issue. But I think all of us must begin to reflect upon what we are doing out there in terms of dealing with the electorate. I try to deal as much as possible only in those issues within the responsibility of the provincial government.

I hear people who are critical of our government in Ontario on issues that have nothing to do with provincial government, and while it may not be in my partisan interests to do so, I try to explain to people that it is not Premier Rae's fault or the Ontario government's fault for an issue which is of a national nature or an exclusively federal nature. It gets down to even silly points, where people, when they don't have a sidewalk fixed, say, "Well, that must be Bob Rae's fault" or "That must be Brian Mulroney's fault" when he was the Prime Minister.

There may be reasons why we as opposition or we as individuals may be critical of a specific government, but I don't think it's fair and I don't think it serves our people well to deal with these issues in this House.

The member has a lot of interesting views on issues that are under provincial jurisdiction, and while I haven't always agreed with them, I've enjoyed hearing him speak in the House on those issues. That's why I'm disappointed today that we're off on a fishing trip with a federal issue that really does not reflect on matters before this House.

But the issue is before us, and I will address it very briefly, because during the Charlottetown agreement, there was some discussion where the Premier had to make pronouncements on whether there would be a Senate or not. I happen to be one who believes there's not a need for a second chamber in this country. There's not a need for a second chamber in this province -- we haven't had it for years and years and years -- and there's not a need for a second chamber in the federal system.

If I could look at a system that would entertain a second chamber with some justification, it might be a federal system. But I think in this country the House of Commons reflects the people of this country. I think we have provincial premiers who are very strong. There are only 10 provinces. There are two territories, soon to be three territories. These people can gather together and could have an awful lot of impact on what happens in this country.

Rather than having a Senate, I think we simply have to give more jurisdiction and perhaps a little more power and prestige to first ministers' conferences, where they speak for the provinces. In addition to this, within a cabinet there are people who speak for various parts of the country and within the various caucuses that are represented in the federal House of Commons and indeed as private citizens.

I don't think there's a necessity for a second House in 1993. The cost is always one factor. And as to the jurisdiction, sorry, I do not like appointed people having the ability to overrule elected people, and members of the Senate are appointed people. I'm not saying they've been totally useless, I'm not saying that they haven't served some purposes with their committees and some of the work they've done. They have done some reasonably good work. I just don't think there's a need for that second chamber.

When we discussed the Charlottetown agreement, there was a lot of consensus, a lot of people who buried hatchets. I will diverge just a bit to talk about us as political representatives, because I think some of the members served on a committee of the Legislature that dealt with that.

I listened to people across this country say: "You politicians are always fighting. We turn on the television set and you're arguing in the Legislature." In fact, I heard a couple of kids in the elevator the other day say, "Are we going in the place where those guys argue all the time?" That was an exact quote. Now, there are men and women in this House arguing, but that's the way they put it.

In this country, we've had a lot of clashes. The question period, on a daily basis, is very confrontational, and some of the other parts are confrontational. So for once the people got together from various political parties and said: "Let's bury the hatchet. Let's try to form a consensus. Let's go across the country and hear what people have to say on this issue."

What happens? As soon as they come up with a consensus, some of the same people who asked, "Why are they always fighting and involved in confrontation, and why can't they work together?" say: "Oh, those politicians are all the same. There they are in bed together now. They're all the same, they're the élite."

On one hand they asked that the politicians work together and when they did work together they said, "You shouldn't work together." It just makes it a little more difficult to be representatives on that basis.

I'm opposed to an elected Senate as well as an appointed Senate because I don't believe there's a need for a second chamber. If you have to come to a compromise, one of the compromises I could not accept is a triple E Senate. I do not believe it should be effective, I do not believe it should be equal and elected, because I believe in representation by population.

I do not believe, much as I have a lot of time and respect for the people of Prince Edward Island, for instance, that the people of Prince Edward Island should have as much say in the national policies as those who reside in provinces such as Ontario or Quebec, which have very large populations. We must take into consideration the points of view of those people, but there is no way we should be diverging from representation based on population. We do that enough now through our provincial boundaries to accommodate people in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas. I don't think it's necessary to do it.

By the way, I also disagreed with Premier Rae's quota system when he was talking about a Senate. He said you had to have three men and three women. I may want six women sitting in the Senate, if you had a Senate. I want to be able to vote for those six women or six men or any combination of either. I do not like it when you impose quotas, because it really means you're prohibiting women from having more than three seats of the six seats in Ontario. I think quotas are not good in that system. Let's elect the best people. I always vote, at a municipal level, for the people I believe will do the best job regardless of what the gender happens to be.

To go back to the issue at hand, I believe we should not have a second chamber. I believe the Senate should be abolished, but I want to remind members of this House that it cannot be done easily, because what the member is asking for when he asks that this issue be reopened is another constitutional round. I'm going to tell you, I don't want to go through another constitutional round when the unemployment rate in my riding is 16%. The last thing the people want to talk about is a Senate or anything else.

I will be voting in favour of this resolution. I don't think it should be before this House; nevertheless, as it is, I'll be voting in favour of the resolution, but I do it only in theory because I do not want them to reopen the constitutional can of worms.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I want to thank the member for bringing such an original resolution before this Legislature.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I think you did it earlier.

Mr Sterling: Oh, you must be referring to the resolution in the spring of 1992. I want to point out to the Speaker and the House that there is a difference between the two resolutions. My resolution said that in the opinion of this House the Senate of Canada should be abolished. I agree with the former speaker from St Catharines that this present resolution is not within the realm of the business of this House. The resolution I presented in the spring of 1992 was within the realm of the business of the House, and I --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Why don't you explain the difference?

Mr Sterling: I will explain the difference. Under our Constitution, it is a requirement that the federal government and all 10 provincial governments unanimously come to Senate reform proposals. In other words, if we are going to abolish the Senate of Canada, it would require the federal government and all provinces, including the province of Ontario, to say that shall be the way.

The other part that is important, and I think it was highlighted by the member for St Catharines' speech, is that we should not in this Legislature, in my opinion, continue to say this other level of government should be doing this or should be doing that. Surely within our own realm or area of business -- and I believe the provincial Legislature probably has a larger number of topics and things we can discuss than any other level of government -- we can find some issues which are relevant to our own place and that we can have some real impact on.

After all, I don't think the people out there really believe that to pass a resolution to tell somebody else to do something is a very powerful statement by this Legislature.

I do think, though, that the member, in bringing forward this resolution, is probably trying in some way to mirror the resolution which I brought forward and trying to gain an expression of the Legislature towards the Senate.

Some might think that because I brought forward a resolution a year and a half ago and things have changed slightly at the federal government, that there has been a change of government there, I might change my attitude towards the Senate. My attitude towards the Senate and my support for it has not changed; in other words, my lack of support for it has not changed.

I think what will be interesting to watch is the reaction of the Conservative-controlled Senate in Ottawa vis-à-vis the Liberal government. If one looks back in history at what the Senate has represented in our federal structure, before 1984, as I remember it in terms of the history of the Senate, the Senate was basically thought of by the public as a chamber of sober second thought. Legislation, after it was brought before the House of Commons, would go to the Senate and they would consider amendments to the bills.

In spite of the fact that there were some political appointments, some people who were perhaps not less qualified, there are some very, very talented people who have been appointed to the Senate as well.

I thought that until 1984, the Senate didn't work badly. One of the reasons it didn't work badly is that it really never challenged the Commons in terms of what it wanted to do. Be it a government of Conservatives or Liberals over the past 100-and-some years preceding 1984, the Senate never stood up and said, "This shall not be the way the law will be." In my view, it was only when Allan MacEachen walked from the House of Commons to the Senate that the nature of the Senate changed. I think Allan MacEachen has destroyed the credibility of the Senate because what he did was politicize the Senate to a degree where he came in and he said --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Is he a Tory?

Mr Sterling: No, he's a Liberal. He was a former Liberal House leader and a former Liberal Finance minister; a very powerful politician, a very skilled politician. But when he went to the Senate, I think he forgot that he was changing his role as an elected MP to become an appointed senator. I think what he did, he did from 1984 on, and his Liberal senators who were there began to assume they had the same mandate as an elected member of the House of Commons had.

So when something came in front of them from the Conservative-controlled Commons which they didn't like, they started to act like elected politicians and thought they had the mandate, particularly on very unpopular programs and legislation, like the GST, like free trade, which generated a lot of debate in the House of Commons and in this country.

I admit there were a lot of people who were against both of those things. Who is for a tax, whether you call it a GST or any other tax? The Senate took it upon itself to be elected people who said to the other elected people, "You can't do this to the people of Canada," and they had no right to say no.

I want to tell you that I hope that if the Senate is not abolished -- I don't think it will be, for the reasons the member for St Catharines identified. I don't think anybody wants to go back into constitutional talks at this time. I think people are still exhausted from the last constitutional talks. I don't think the whole idea of the Senate abolishing the Senate is on the table for discussion, probably for another five or 10 years.

We're going to see a Conservative-controlled Senate and a Liberal-controlled House of Commons, and I only hope the Conservative senators do not hold up legislation from the majority Liberal government of the House of Commons, as was experienced in reverse over the last 10 years by the Mulroney government in Ottawa.

I don't care how unpopular is whatever the Liberal government should bring forward. I do not believe a Conservative-controlled Senate has the right to hold up legislation unduly or turn back legislation from the Liberal-controlled House of Commons of Canada. The Liberal government is the elected government of the people of Canada and I don't believe the Conservative senators have the right to say, "No" or to say "You can't have this for a lengthy, lengthy period of time."

I damn the former Liberal senators who turned back and turned this chamber, from being perceived by the public as a chamber of sober second thought, into another political organ, because they didn't have that right, they have never had that right, and even though constitutionally they had been given those powers, they have never been exercised, in the prudence of former Senates that have sat in this country for 100, 120 and 125 years.

I want to say first of all that it's unfortunate that the wording of this resolution is inaccurate, but I take the thrust of the member's resolution. This member supported my resolution some year and a half ago in this Legislature, which I appreciate, and I think the thrust in the resolution should be supported as well.

Mr Mammoliti: I want to thank the member for Downsview for giving me the opportunity to speak on this particular resolution. I agree with the resolution, and that isn't a secret. I certainly spoke out publicly on this issue during the debates a year and a half ago, roughly, and I continue speaking out.

I can't understand, however, some of the comments that have been made today in this Legislature. The Liberals who responded to the member for Downsview's resolution tell us, and the member for St Catharines from the Liberal Party tells us, that it has nothing to do with this House, the provincial House. I don't agree with that statement and I can't understand, quite frankly, why he makes that statement. How could he possibly say that the voice of Ontarians doesn't have anything to do with commenting on this particular resolution?

What he's saying is that it doesn't belong in this Legislature and that we shouldn't be standing up and speaking about this, that in his words it's a waste of time.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): He's right.

Mr Mammoliti: I hear heckling from the Conservatives saying he's right. I don't agree with that statement. I don't agree that he's right. I think he's wrong. I think we are the voice for Ontarians, I think it belongs in this Legislature and I can't understand his logic.

How can he possibly say it doesn't belong in this Legislature when we're spending approximately $45 million a year to run the Senate, and at the same time that we're spending this money, the federal government is cutting the provincial transfer payments and at this particular time owes us approximately $5 billion? How could this gentleman from St Catharines, from the Liberal Party, stand up and say it doesn't belong in this House?

Mr Callahan: Are you being partisan?

Mr Mammoliti: No. I hear heckling from the Liberals. I'm not being partisan; I'm being honest. I'm sharing my feelings with you, as the member for St Catharines shared earlier. I respect the fact that he told us how he feels, but he's wrong. He's wrong, and you tell the taxpayers of this province that it doesn't belong in this particular House and you know exactly what they'll tell you.

For the Conservatives, on the other hand, of course the member for Carleton stands up and he doesn't believe the Senate should hold up the Liberal agenda. That's what he said. He doesn't believe the Senate should hold up any of the new Liberal government's agenda. So let me ask the question: What do they do then? What's their responsibility? What's their responsibility at the federal level and what do they do? Do they just rubber-stamp anything that comes in front of them? If that's the case, I believe even more that this particular resolution belongs in this House.

We need to send a message to our federal counterparts and that message has to be: "You're not doing anything. You have no responsibilities. Abolish the Senate. Save the $45 million a year and put it towards the debt." I didn't hear that in the federal election that just took place. I didn't hear anybody say, "Let's take that $45 million and put it towards the debt."

Mr Callahan: Didn't Audrey say that?

Mr Mammoliti: Except Audrey McLaughlin, the New Democratic leader. She is the only person who came out publicly and said, "Abolish the Senate."

Mr Callahan: She did not.

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, I hear heckling again from the Liberals saying, "She did not." I'm assuming that perhaps Mr Chrétien said, "Let's get rid of the Senate," as well, and if that's the case, even more at this particular time I would say to the members across, to the Liberal Party, make a phone call to your leader, then, and have him abolish the Senate, have him start the process.

The argument comes out again that it's not particularly the right time to get into this debate at the federal level. To give the Liberals credit, I would say they're right in terms of jobs. People want jobs. They don't want the constitutional debate to come forward at this particular time. However, and much as I agree with that comment, that doesn't mean this Legislature can't send the message, that doesn't mean this House should not send the message.

For the people in this place who stand up and say it's not our responsibility, give your heads a shake and explain that to your constituents. Explain to your constituents the role the Senate plays at the federal level. Explain to them that you've stood up here and said, "It's not my responsibility." Oh, give your heads a shake and find out what your constituents actually believe and actually want you to do as members.

Mr Callahan: I rise to repeat, probably, the same speech I made when the member for Carleton brought this matter before the Legislature.

I think people are fed up with being overgoverned. We've got regional government; we've got school boards that consist of 20 and 30 and 40 people; we've got area municipalities; we've got federal governments; we've got provincial governments. It's no wonder this country has a deficit. If I had to support that many relatives in my family, I'd probably have a deficit too.

I want to say that it demonstrates and we're seeing this morning the true indicia of how senseless it is to have these Thursday morning meetings. There is absolutely nothing that will be accomplished by any of them.

Mr Mammoliti: Here we go again: "It's not our responsibility."

Mr Callahan: I'm telling you the way I feel. This Legislature badly requires reform. We sit here on Thursday mornings from 10 to 12, and I don't know what the cost of it is, but it's incredible: Certain bills are passed, initiatives are brought forward by private members and they never get beyond the bellows of the government leader's desk.

The present occupant of the Speaker's chair brought in an excellent bill on photos for health cards. Where did that go? No place. The Ministry of Health was in favour of it. They've never seen the light of day. We don't even know what the government's doing these days with the health cards.

I suggest to you that all this debate that we do on Thursday mornings is just an expense the public can do without, thank you, just like they can do perhaps without the Senate. Perhaps they can do without regional government; perhaps they can do with smaller school boards. We burden the taxpayers with all these costs of unnecessary bodies.

Getting back to the message at hand, we've already sent the message to Ottawa. It was sent when the member for Carleton brought a motion in that regard and I spoke on that.

I think this motion by the member for Downsview is sour grapes. If you look at the present situation in Ottawa, with only a pair of Tories in the Conservative House of Commons, they weren't going to be given any money for research or anything else. They got help from the majority in the Senate because they have all this research money to help out the couple of Tories who are in the House. The New Democratic Party, because it has no senators, is not going to get any money. They don't have any research money, and of course they didn't do that well in the last federal election. So the nature of this perhaps has something to do with sour grapes.

When one looks at the constitutional debates that went on in this country about the abolition of the Senate, I don't think anybody wants to go back to that, because right now the major thing is the economy of this country: Get people back to work. Get them retrained so they can get into jobs that perhaps have become more futuristic.

I suggest that standing here and debating an issue such as the abolition of the Senate, although many of us could easily say, "Sure, abolish it," is like belling the cat -- the mice might want the cat belled but the question is, who's going to bell the cat? That's precisely what's going on here.

The fact that we say the Senate should be abolished: Do you think Ottawa is going to turn around tomorrow morning and abolish the Senate? Number one, they can't do it, the member for Downsview should know, because it has to be done, as my friend from Carleton said, under the Constitution by a certain procedure. Mr Chrétien, as Prime Minister, does not have absolute power, nor would he use it if he had it, but he can't just abolish the Senate by clicking his fingers.

I suggest to the member for Downsview that this is an interesting motion and it's been an interesting exercise in debating, but apart from that, it's not much more. I suggest again, in closing, that perhaps we should look at the reform of this place to the extent that the government would accept more initiatives, more bills from private members, and make the hour that we spend here in the morning at the expense of the taxpayers of Ontario meaningful, so that the people of this province would get more for their taxes.

You tell your House leader that initiatives that are brought forward here are brought forward by people who care about them and want to see them passed.

Mr McLean: I want to take a few minutes this morning just to comment briefly on this resolution. The resolution reads: "That, in the opinion of this House, this Parliament should call upon the new federal government to abolish the Senate of Canada."

There's not much point in wasting a lot of time debating this resolution. My colleague the member for Carleton brought in the resolution on July 23, 1992, and this Legislature voted overwhelmingly in favour of that resolution which clearly and concisely called for the Senate of Canada to be abolished. The members here overwhelmingly supported that. Why are we debating another resolution today along the same lines?

I would say that the member for Downsview is wasting the time of this Legislature on this issue. The time could be better spent on cleaning up the mess of his government and colleagues as they fumble and they bumble their way through this process here trying to govern the province.

I understand another closure motion will be coming in today. During the election campaign in 1990 the Premier made all kinds of promises. He talked about the Agenda for People, which was stacked with promises. How many of those promises have been fulfilled when we look at the insurance, we look at what he was going to do with regard to the issue surrounding loans to farmers, to the small businesses? What has he done up until yesterday? He made some announcement with regard to that.

I'm not the first one to say that this resolution is certainly a waste of time. There are issues out there that I read about: the teachers' strikes that have taken place in this province. Why are we not debating this hour in this Legislature about how we could have better legislation and change so that those children would be back in school?

We look at the issue with regard to the Consumer and Commercial Relations fees which my leader mentioned here the other day and the great percentage increases that are affecting the people across the province, the taxpayers. Why are we not debating something like that?

We look at the government debt, the bond agency that announced yesterday the lowering of the credit rating. Why are we not discussing how that could be changed so that the Finance minister could rejuggle his books in order to restructure the way they spend money in government?

The other major issue in this province is Ontario Hydro. Why are we not discussing more about Ontario Hydro, the Bruce plant that they were trying to close or indicated that they were not going to retube, the amount of jobs that are up there?

Today I read in the paper where the Premier has even written a letter in the Toronto Star: "NDP has had to consider all of Ontario in making decisions in hard times." When I read that article, it is an election item on the Premier's agenda now to try and get re-elected in 1995. I cannot anticipate how the Premier could even think of getting re-elected on the promises that he has broken, on the changes that he has made in this province with regard to his friends in labour, how they banged at the doors here yesterday, trying to get in.

Now this member brings a resolution forward today with regard to asking the new federal government to abolish the Senate of Canada. That issue has been dealt with and the member for St Catharines was saying here this morning it's redundant. The member for Carleton brought that in last year and it was passed.

Why aren't we talking about the new tobacco legislation here? Why are we not talking about the issues that are on the minds of the people, the people who are out there who haven't got a job, the people who are out there who for the first time have to go on welfare, the first time they have to go for assistance. There are so many issues that we should be debating instead of wasting our time on a resolution talking about what the federal government should do.

This is a government in opposition. This is a government that has not got the ideas to put forward, to make sound judgements based on what the people of this province want. They still want to criticize somebody else. If it's not the GST, it's the Senate. If it's not the Senate, it will be something else. It's strictly a government in opposition.

We will deal with some other issues such as the county bill next week.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm happy to be supporting Mr Perruzza's resolution and say that it is a very simple resolution, not complicated by excessive or unnecessary verbiage, quite clear, quite simple.

As to what the Liberals have said about this bill, two of them have said this bill is beyond the jurisdiction of the province, that we should not be dealing with it. They spent several minutes saying why it is beyond our jurisdiction and spent four or five or 10 minutes speaking to the substance of this motion. So quite clearly they recognize that it is within the jurisdiction of this province to deal with such an issue.

The Tories say through Mr McLean: "Mr Sterling has already dealt with this motion. It's a Tory motion. Mr Perruzza supported it, I supported it and others supported it." So what he's saying is that once the Tories have dealt with it, we don't need to deal with it again, because they dealt with it.

What I say to Mr McLean is that this issue needs to be debated and redebated. It has been debated since the 1920s and it probably will continue to be debated. We need to influence the federal government to take action on this, and it is within the jurisdiction of this province to deal with this matter.

He knows -- Mr Sterling understood it -- that in order to change the Senate, you need a constitutional amendment. In order to get that amendment, you need provincial support, or not, to do that. Quite clearly we as a province are involved whether we like it or not. So we're debating the substance of the debate, and to that I say we need to abolish the Senate.

But I want to say, before I get into some of the comments about this, that both the Liberals and the Tories say the people of Canada do not want yet another constitutional discussion. To that I argue that at some point in the very near future, we, the people of Ontario and the rest of Canada, need to deal with the constitutional discussion again. Reform needs to happen, because it won't go away.

We need to deal with the fact that the territories want to become provinces. They are not going to disappear. They want provincehood and they want constitutional reform. Aboriginal people want constitutional reform. We need constitutional reform for aboriginal people, and they will not disappear.

The issue of the Senate will come back, either elected or the abolishment of it. It will come back because the people of Ontario want to deal with the Senate. Unlike the opinion of Mr McLean, who says nobody wants to talk about it, the people of Ontario are talking about it.

The whole issue of provincial powers comes back, and it comes back over and over again. The provinces want reform on provincial powers. It comes through constitutional reform. We also need to deal with the issues that have concerned Quebec because they affect the unity of this country.

They argue we can't talk about this, that the people don't want it. Well, I tell the members who say this that whether they like it or not, these issues need to be dealt with, because they affect the economy of this country, they affect relations of provinces in this country, and when that happens, it affects us as a country. They'll have to deal with it whether they like it or not. On this score, I say we will have to deal with constitutional reform.

On the whole issue of the present system of the Senate, the present system is an abysmal failure. It doesn't work. It's pork-barrelling, and everybody knows it. Trudeau did it. Then Mulroney said, "I'll fix it," and he did. He appointed Tories. That's how he fixed the problem of the Senate. It is an illegitimate way to put people in the Senate. It is unacceptable and it is abhorrent to the people of Ontario and to Canada. The present system doesn't work.

As to an elected system, I argue it would be a better system to elect senators because they at least would be more accountable. They would be more equal, and I accept a counterbalance. In the House they're elected by population, representation by population; in the Senate you'd have an equal Senate based on provinces. I can accept that counterbalance. It's not a big problem for me.

Equal, yes, elected, yes, but when it comes to the issue of effective, if the Senate doesn't have the power to be able to bring the government down, then why do we need a Senate? Yes, they would be more equal, yes, they would be more accountable, but if it doesn't have the full powers to be effective, why do we need it?

The final point about this is that we don't need a Senate, not in its present form, not in an elected form, because either of the two systems would be ineffective and wrong. The conclusion one comes to, quite simply, is let us abolish the Senate and let the Legislature make this statement again and again and again.

When members have an opinion to make, want to bring forth a resolution, it's a good resolution to debate because the people of Ontario want to debate and want to deal with this. I'm happy to stand here today to support this resolution. It's a good resolution, simple, and I think we should all be supporting it.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I appreciate the couple of minutes or so that my colleagues have allowed me to speak to this issue, and I must say that I'm not here to debate about why this is happening, why that is happening. I'm here to bring what I heard during the federal election.

I went from here and attended all the all-candidates meetings in the recent federal election. One of the burning questions that came up over and over again to all the candidates there was, how do you stand about the abolition of the Senate? The very asking of the question caused pandemonium in every meeting I went to. People clapped and they would not sit down. They clapped and applauded.

Finally, all these candidates got to their feet, including the Liberals and the Conservatives, and said: "Yes, you know, you're right. We should abolish the Senate." These mealy-mouthed creatures who stack the Senate with their appointments are sickening to the people. Every time the Conservatives get out, they post their friends into the Senate. They get $100,000, they never go near the place, they get expenses up to their ears, and it's the perks. It's a little pension plan that they get in addition to something else.

I heard the member for Brampton this morning on his high horse, and it's wonderful when you're on the top of the pile to talk about how bad the NDP is, but the NDP has never put anybody in the Senate. I can tell you that Turner and Trudeau filling the Senate up with all their buddies is so -- I mustn't say the word here but the public hates it. They cannot stomach this patronage and what's going on in the Senate.

As I speak for the people of Durham East, I say to you, Mr Speaker, that without exception they tell me we must abolish the Senate, immediately if not last week. People here have said: "This is nothing to do with us. Why are you wasting time?" I don't consider it a waste of time at all to stand in my place this morning and tell the folks here what the people in Durham East think about the Senate. That's not a waste of time, not at all. They despise this organization, and I say, as the clock winds down to one second and then none, we should do away with the Senate right this week.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Perruzza: Just very quickly to wrap up, I found this morning really interesting. My Liberal and Conservative friends -- actually the two Liberals who spoke to this immediately left the House after having said their piece. They come in here and say, "We shouldn't be talking about this," but boy, they came in this morning, and they rarely every do, and did they say a few things about this. And my Conservative friends, boy, did they do the same thing. They had the courage to stay. They're still here and they're listening intently, and I know they're listening intently.

Mr Speaker, what's within our jurisdiction? Is free trade within our jurisdiction? You know and I know and most people here know that it's not within our jurisdiction, but boy, does it affect Ontario and, boy, I'd like to see a Liberal or a Conservative go back to their communities and say, "I'm not going to go to Queen's Park and talk about free trade, no way, no how, no sirree." I can tell you right darned quick that, boy, would they get the boot. They'd get the boot so far they could take their Florida holiday early.

They could take their pension, they could take their severance pay and they could go to Florida for six months, because they wouldn't be coming back to this place, I'll tell you that right now.

Should we be talking about NAFTA and free trade with Mexico? Boy, I tell you, if a Liberal or a Conservative came to this chamber and said, "No, I'm not going to talk about that," would they be able to take their holiday early too. I say to them, keep sinking money in a dud. The Senate is a dud.

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: My Conservative friend says, "It's the chamber of sober second thought." Well, I can't vouch for the sober, I don't know if they're sober, but I can tell you something: They're never there. The majority of them are never there. There's a handful at best any time they're to consider anything that's sober.

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

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Sullivan moved private member's notice of motion number 29:

That, in the opinion of this House, given that the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute have provided exemplary service to cancer patients in Ontario, but that these institutions face major capital and operating deficiencies; and that the number of new patients requiring timely treatment is expected to reach 60,000 per year by the year 2000 at the same time as hundreds of thousands of patients need continuing care through a cooperative, coordinated system developed on a regional basis; and that a comprehensive system integrating research, education and patient services will enhance the provision of cancer treatment in the province; and that the 1985 Provincial Role Study of Cancer Services in Ontario prepared for the OCTRF and the OCI recommended the establishment of an Ontario cancer agency and that those institutions accepted that recommendation in principle; this House recommends that the government of Ontario should introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to establish an Ontario cancer agency which will merge the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute into one unified organization under a single board, to provide a comprehensive cancer control program for Ontario through a comprehensive cancer centre in each region, and to provide administrative and functional coordination of all resources for cancer control in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I want to start my remarks by indicating to the House that this resolution is based on my belief that we need a new paradigm in the development of a health care strategy today and, as part of that, a rational strategy and vehicle for planning an integrated cancer control system.

The evolution of cancer care in Ontario has been a long one with significant steps being taken in the early 1930s with the establishment of the Cody commission and its recommendations that the new radiation technologies which were being found effective in cancer care be concentrated in regional clinics.

These centralized regional services provided the basis for what is known today as our cancer system and were able to include a critical mass that attracted expertise in cancer care specialists, a logical approach to equipment acquisition and strong research programs which are integral to cancer care.

Fifty years ago the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation was established to coordinate a comprehensive program of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, research and education and to be responsible for the funding and direction of regional cancer care centres. The eight centres which have evolved since that time provide multidisciplinary care onsite, with community outreach through cancer clinics located in community hospitals.

Later, the Ontario Cancer Institute was established, linking the major teaching hospitals in Toronto with the academic component of the University of Toronto medical school and the provincial hospital tertiary referral centre, the Princess Margaret Hospital.

The OCTRF and the OCI form the formal cancer system in Ontario. Only they may provide radiotherapy treatments that are required by 50% of Ontario's cancer patients. The remaining portion of patients who may require other treatment such as surgery or chemotherapy may be treated through the OCI-OCTRF system, through community hospitals or through clinics offered by medical oncologists. Haematologists, internal medical specialists, surgeons and other providers all work both inside and outside the formal cancer system.

Forty years ago, legislation recognized the OCI and the OCTRF as separate but affiliated organizations. Both are charged with responsibilities for research, diagnosis and treatment and both provide comparable patient services in community outreach. The OCI has a singular international reputation in research and has established a particular role in providing specialty education for those who work in cancer care in various specialties, such as radiation, pathology, surgical and medical oncology, biophysics and radiation biology. The significance of their role is not just for Ontario but for the country as a whole.

Like the Princess Margaret Hospital, the regional centres offer comprehensive cancer care, including treatment and education with clinical and basic research in a multidisciplinary environment, and all regional centres are now allied with a health sciences centre.

Outside the formal system, though, every public hospital in Ontario offers care to cancer patients, and hospital services which are involved in cancer care include such things as physiotherapy, laboratory services, diagnostic imaging, surgical services, educational services, social work, pastoral care and many others.

Medical schools and teaching hospitals have a separate role in determining numbers of trainees in various specialty fields.

It is a fragmented system, and over they years there have been intense cycles of crises when facilities and services, equipment and personnel have not been in place to provide timely, appropriate and effective care to people who need it.

As well, the evaluation of care provided has been spotty, and I say that is particularly true outside the formal system. Human resources planning has been deficient as well in ensuring that we are graduating those health care providers with the skills and training needed in this highly specialized area. That deficiency, I point out, extends well beyond the field of radiology and beyond the medical specialties themselves.

In bringing this resolution to the House, I think it's useful to review where we are today and where we want to be tomorrow. I don't think anyone would disagree that where we want to be is with a fully functioning, integrated and comprehensive cancer control system which includes effective and efficient treatment as close to the patient's home as possible.

But a cancer control strategy, I point out, goes beyond that. A cancer control strategy must include a continuum of appropriate care tailored to the individual needs of the patient, including prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, home care and palliation.

It must incorporate research and education and the means and the flexibility to take advantage of that research and apply it to a clinical setting, no matter what the clinical setting. It must include up-to-date care management systems providing clinical and other data and it must allow for continuing evaluation and accountability.

An appropriate cancer control strategy must include long-term human resources planning and planning for capital development in a multi-year framework that takes account of both new and replacement capital needs. Both planning and delivery must be collaborative and multidisciplinary and must integrate the formal system with services provided and needed outside of that system.

Those broad goals are not new. They have been identified in part or in total by other studies, by professional bodies and by consumer groups, but a particularly important 1985 study underlined those needs. The Provincial Role Study of Cancer Services in Ontario was commissioned jointly by the OCTRF and the OCI. In this resolution today, I am reflecting one of the major recommendations of that report which continues to be a valid one. That recommendation is to develop a fully comprehensive cancer control program established across the province and establish a unified cancer agency. The specific recommendation says:

"The new organization should preserve the existing basis of cancer control delivery. It should be given the mandate to coordinate all cancer care programming throughout the health care system in the province, respecting the jurisdictional rights and obligations of existing hospitals, universities and other agencies with special interests in cancer control. It should also reaffirm the existing mandate currently held by the OCTRF-OCI to deliver programs through existing cancer centres and the OCI."

In their commentary, the authors note:

"Future requirements will only increase the need for a coordinated oncologic program in the province.... A province-wide system based on the OCTRF and the OCI, together with a coordinated network of interested and committed physicians in the community, would be the best way to disseminate...new knowledge. A coordinated system would also encourage establishing and maintaining adequate standards, treatment effectiveness and efficiency in a high-cost environment."

My own view is that the 1985 report recommendations are key, identifying as they do priorities and components needed in a comprehensive cancer program. They talk to the role of community physicians whose function is pivotal, and particularly so, by example, when drugs with increasing toxicity to patient and provider alike are used in cancer care. Appropriate utilization evaluation, prescribing guidelines and coordinated educational programs are needed to ensure that the physician is working with maximum and up-to-date information and that a consistent auditing system is in place across the province.

Oncological nurses, surgical oncologists, laboratory physicians and others need to be more integrated into a cancer network as part of a multidisciplinary team. Increasing needs for palliation must be included in a cancer control strategy, as should paediatric oncology. Care management information systems need enhancing and research needs a firm and stable funding base.

The psychological and social needs of the patient are increasingly important concerns in a continuum of care, and too often they are left out of our planning.

I was pleased yesterday to note at our cancer task force hearings at the Princess Margaret Hospital that Dr Tom Dickson, president of the Ontario Medical Association, endorsed the principle of a unified cancer control agency which would promote the highest quality of care and utilize the expertise, leadership and standards of the OCI-OCTRF. Like many others, his gauge was the need for consistent principles for referral, diagnosis, assessment, treatment and follow-up of all patients and for a cancer control program that ensures equal, standardized care.

This resolution is not about a specific structure. That should and must be further discussed, and mutual agreements made. Rather, it is about an appropriate vehicle for the development of an appropriate cancer control strategy and program that integrate the work of the formal system with the work that takes part outside of that system.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mrs Sullivan's private member's resolution is based on discussion contained within the 1985 Provincial Role Study of Cancer Services prepared for the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute. Part of the report's discussion focuses on the establishment of an Ontario cancer agency to merge the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute into one unified organization under one board.

Ironically, it was a Liberal government which sat on this report while in government. The PC Party, my caucus colleagues and I are firmly in favour of better management and coordination of cancer services in Ontario. Over the last few months we have heard endless stories of staff shortages, long waiting lists and ailing patients with nowhere to turn. We've heard these stories from our constituents, health providers and through the media.

There is a cancer crisis in the province of Ontario -- I think there is no doubt of that now -- and I want to talk for a moment about what the NDP government's response has been. Cancer services are inadequate and have not been managed effectively by the government. The leader of the Ontario PC Party, Mike Harris, brought to the attention of this Legislature the case of an American patient jumping the queue at a London, Ontario, treatment centre. Judy Thompson, a Kitchener resident who waited three months for radiotherapy, met a Port Huron, Michigan, woman at the London Regional Cancer Centre who told her that she had been cleared for similar treatment in just one week.

The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has estimated that Ontario needs 104 more radiation therapists. Currently only 321 in total are employed in the province. The Minister of Health indicated that she has put out a worldwide call to radiation oncologists and therapists to come to Ontario to practise. We have heard that of the 11 radiation oncologists who graduated in June 1993, only four have chosen to stay in Ontario to practise.

If I had more time I would go into the reasons health care providers and physicians are actually discouraged by the policies of this government from practising here in Ontario. Even though we spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to educate those people in Ontario, they find it, in most cases, better to leave.

The ministry response to huge waiting lists for cancer services was six regional round tables focusing on how to involve consumers in the planning process. Talk about ridiculous. We have people dying on waiting lists and the ministry's response focuses on how to make politically correct cancer decisions.

What is the PCs' position with respect to today's resolution? I think it goes without saying that my caucus firmly supports any well-researched coordination and amalgamation efforts which would lead to better services for patients requiring cancer services. If the proposed amalgamation, that is, the one proposed in today's resolution, of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute can be shown to result in better services for patients, I would support the resolution both in principle and in fact.

What we must not lose sight of, however, in our discussions today is how cancer services can be best coordinated in the province. It is a fact that the Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation really only represent about 22% of the total cancer system in the province. Even with the proposed merger, the bulk of cancer services, 78% to be exact, are left unaccounted for. A strong case can be made to deal first with the 78% of cancer services outside of the Ontario Cancer Institute and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation.

By agreeing in principle to this resolution, I am concerned that the adoption of this resolution by the government may be perceived as the provincial response to the cancer needs of the future. The PC caucus believes that a provincial cancer strategy must go beyond this Liberal Party resolution. A provincial cancer strategy must cover 100% of cancer services across the province, and it is our feeling that province-wide coordination of cancer services is indeed long overdue.

The Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation are operating at full capacity and have waiting lists. Unlike other parts of the health care world, where underutilized resources are being closed or otherwise rationalized, both Princess Margaret and the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation are fully utilized.

It is my feeling that a merger between OCI, PMH and OCTRF should be done in conjunction with province-wide cancer service coordination. At this point in time, it should be noted that the Princess Margaret Hospital is not in favour of such a merger. While Princess Margaret has expressed a willingness to participate in a review of cancer services, it does not believe that extensive financial benefits would result from a merger. In my view, financial benefits and better service delivery must be proven before a merger is even contemplated by the province.

With respect to the proposal of a single board, five of the Ontario Cancer Institute's board members are Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation appointees and the others represent some other institutions, so there is already a tight organizational representation.

On the downside of a government-endorsed merger proposal from an Ontario Cancer Institute perspective is the problem of holding the capital campaign together. The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation is 100% funded, while the Ontario Cancer Institute is not; in fact, the Ontario Cancer Institute is currently trying to raise some $50 million. We have been advised by the Ontario Cancer Institute that the merger proposal, or the adoption of this resolution this morning, has the potential to seriously damage its fund-raising campaign.

In

summary, we believe it is high time for a province-wide cancer strategy. We support the principle of greater collaboration, with the aim of higher-quality, more cost-effective service for the entire cancer care sector. We do not believe, based on concerns brought to our attention by the Ontario Cancer Institute, that a merger between the Ontario Cancer Institute and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation will result in province-wide coordination of cancer services and cost savings. For these reasons, and others I've outlined in the course of my remarks, I will not be supporting the Liberal resolution.

In closing, though, I would like to commend the member for Halton Centre for the work she has done in this area, and I would very sincerely like to recognize that her motion was put forward this morning with the very best of intentions.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I think it's fair to say that all members of this House and from all sides of this House recognize, both from a personal aspect and from a general health aspect, the importance of developing a cancer strategy that is comprehensive and that deals with the whole issue of cancer treatment and cancer prevention. I think all of us have personally been affected by those of our family and our friends who've been lost to this dread disease, and also we've been impressed by the number of our family and friends who have conquered this disease.

I think we need to do everything we can to have the most effective program in treatment and the most effective prevention programs we can have.

First of all, I'd like to indicate that our government is working on a comprehensive cancer strategy. We've been involved ever since we began in government in consultations to put the final touches to a provincial cancer strategy that would encompass the full continuum of cancer care; that is, from tertiary care treatment, from community care, to palliative care to prevention. I think it's important that remain a high priority.

With respect to the question of shortages, which were referred to by the critic for the third party, I believe we have responded. We as a government have recognized the need for more radiation oncologists, recognized the need for more radiation technicians, recognized the need for more radiation machines, and we have responded. Our government has responded with increased funding and increased efforts to meet this need. We've also responded in establishing the province-wide referral system to try to ensure that people get timely treatment.

With respect to the specific aspect of this motion, of the merger of the OCTRF and the OCI, I know at one time it was considered an acceptable proposal by both of these institutions, but, as indicated by my friend the member for Simcoe West, one of the parties at the moment feels such a merger would be premature. If we look at the past experience with respect to mergers of large institutions, they've not always worked out to the best: they've not always realized the financial savings and they haven't always resulted in more efficiency.

Particularly in view of the fact that one of the parties to the proposed marriage is not in favour at this time, that is, the OCI, I would suggest it is premature at this time.

I recognize and certainly the government recognizes the need for coordination between these two agencies in the joint planning. I think that is the preliminary approach that should be taken, to encourage more joint planning and see what can be done with respect to joint management to move towards a more coordinated system. It may in the longer run be best that these institutions be merged, but I suggest it's very premature at this time.

For that reason, the government will not be supporting the resolution, because we feel the merger would be premature. To be fair to both the member for Halton Centre and the member for Simcoe West, I think there's a unified agreement that what we must work on is a comprehensive cancer strategy, and that is the high priority for all of us to work towards in order that we do make continued progress with respect to the treatment and prevention of cancer.

Cancer is a disease. Whether it's something that's more prevalent in our century, perhaps maybe societal, self-inflicted in the sense of the pollution of the environment, the workplace conditions, the lifestyle aspects, we have to look at all these aspects with respect to why it is that cancer has become such a growing disease in our society. We have to be much more successful on the preventive side, as well as providing the needed treatment, as well as providing the care in the community, as well as providing the palliative care so people who are faced with the disease continue to live in the community.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It gives me very great pleasure to rise in support of the resolution of the member for Halton Centre. If we take a look at this resolution and ask ourselves what it really says, it talks about very important things in the delivery of cancer care treatment across this province. It talks about "a cooperative, coordinated system developed on a regional basis." It talks about "a comprehensive system integrating research, education and patient services" which "will enhance the provision of cancer treatment in the province."

When I look at the work of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute, I really say that we are very fortunate in the province of Ontario to have these fine institutions that have provided so much in the way of research, education, cancer treatment and care.

But one thing I have found as we have travelled across the province in our cancer care task force, which was established by Lyn McLeod, is that there's a very different approach in the various regions of the province.

Again, when we've been visiting the regional cancer centres, we have been very appreciative of some of the very positive things that have happened in Ontario, that we have a very caring, compassionate, highly skilled staff, including physicians, including therapists, including technicians, including all the support systems, the social workers, the nurses throughout the entire system, and they are doing their best. But one theme is consistently coming out: These people are overworked and overtaxed.

Each individual region has very different needs. We had a presentation from the chief executive officer of the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, and he said they've resolved a number of their problems; that they had long waiting lists, but with the delivery of new machines and because they've recently hired four cancer oncologists, some of their problems, at least in the short term, have been remedied.

But other centres were extremely concerned about the shortfall, and I will talk specifically about what we heard at two of the areas in Metro Toronto: first, the Princess Margaret Hospital and, second, the Bayview Regional Cancer Centre. What we heard there was very interesting.

The first thing I learned was that in fact the OCI and the OCTRF only utilize 22% of the resources in the formal cancer system; the remaining 78% is actually in the informal cancer system, and this is in the area, for instance, of the community hospitals. This is where I think we need the greatest coordination and the greatest effort to make sure that they are getting the information, that they are getting the assistance, that in fact that network is out there and working.

Right now I believe that the regional cancer centres are fulfilling a very important function in trying to coordinate this. But one of the concerns of the member for Halton Centre and one of the concerns that I've shared since I've travelled the province is that I'm not sure our network is as strong as it needs to be, particularly in the provision of information and education.

We're looking at two systems, in effect: a formal cancer system which includes our regional cancer centres, and an informal system which includes all the community hospitals, the clinics and the informal mechanisms where they're providing cancer services. I think it's tremendously important, particularly in this day and age, that we ensure that those resources are equitably accessed across the province, that information is available across the province.

That's why I think members of this Legislature should very seriously consider supporting this. She did it by way of a member's resolution, rather than legislation, so that there would be flexibility to give the government the opportunity to further study the issue, weigh the merits and look at some of the disadvantages, certainly, in some of the things that would have to be rectified before we put that in place.

Yesterday, when we had hearings at the Princess Margaret Hospital, and it was a particularly interesting place to have been the day before this resolution, we had a presentation by Dr Tom Dickson, the president of the Ontario Medical Association. I think he summarized a number of the needs of the cancer care system very succinctly.

He said, first of all, that cancer care needs more technical resources, more human resources, more fiscal resources. Secondly, it must be user-friendly. Thirdly, he said cancer care needs a unified and representative cancer care agency. He was very supportive of having this unified body which comprises the OCI, the OCTRF, the Ministry of Health and the OMA, all as partners together, not to say that one of these groups would rule the other. That's not the way he envisaged it, and I know it's not the way the member for Halton Centre sees this.

Fourthly, he said we need continuing medical education, fifthly, that cancer care requires equitable access across the province and a centralized approach to data management, and sixthly, that there should be the development of clinical guidelines, although obviously many are already in place across the province.

When we look at what is provided across the province, it's also important for us to look at where we have dissimilarities. One of these that I found was in the area of patient support. In certain centres such as, for instance, London, when we were there, we had a presentation from a patient who had actually been appointed to the regional advisory council, as a consumer, so that she could put forward her ideas.

The chief executive officer at the London Regional Cancer Centre, Dr Levin, was extremely sensitive to try and incorporate some of the desires of patients and some of the needs of patients into the system.

One of the things that Marie, that patient, said was that when a patient walks in the door, they need the team approach: a social worker, a nutritionist, a nurse, an advocate, a radiation oncologist, a pharmacist and a scientist -- obviously, not at the same time; all these things have to be coordinated at the right time so that they're available for the patients.

We heard from Susan in Toronto, who talked about the stress of being a patient, who also talked about things such as the relocation program for Metro women with breast cancer treatments and how stressful that was, the need for better coordination of information, better communication, better explanations to the patients. All these things lead me to believe that we do need that coordination so the patient support system is there in every part of this province.

I would urge members of this House to support the resolution of the member for Halton Centre, and I very much appreciate her dedication in bringing it forward.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution from the member for Halton Centre, which recommends that the provincial government introduce legislation "to establish an Ontario cancer agency which will merge the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute into one unified organization under a single board, to provide a comprehensive cancer control program for Ontario through a comprehensive cancer centre in each region, and to provide administrative and functional coordination of all resources for cancer control in Ontario."

I'm disappointed to hear that the government is not going to support this resolution. I cannot believe why the debate that's taken place here this morning wouldn't certainly be in the interests of the government's agenda and of the people of this province. I support this resolution in principle because our caucus favours improved management and coordination of cancer services in Ontario.

We have all heard numerous reports from our constituents, health care providers and the media of short staff, long waiting lists and ailing patients with nowhere to turn. I trust you will agree the facts speak for themselves. An estimated 116,200 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in Canada this year alone, and an estimated 59,700 deaths will be caused by cancer. The Ontario Cancer Registry predicts that there will be 30,000 new cases of cancer in men and 28,000 new cases in women in Ontario by the year 2000. So the number of Ontario residents being diagnosed with cancer is growing at about 4% annually.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The waiting lists for treatment of cancers of the breast, cervix, larynx, lung and prostate have doubled over the past decade. Waiting lists at cancer units in Ontario regularly exceed the standards for optimum care set by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists, which suggests that a gap of four weeks between diagnosis and treatment should be the maximum waiting period.

The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has estimated there are 321 radiation therapists employed in Ontario and that we need an additional 104.

This is certainly a disturbing situation and one that has not improved under the mismanagement of the current Minister of Health and her NDP government. There are people dying while on waiting lists, and the Minister of Health sets up her regional round tables to make politically correct cancer decisions.

My party and I support any well-researched coordination and amalgamation efforts that would lead to better services for patients requiring cancer services. If the member for Halton Centre's proposed amalgamation of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute can be shown to result in improved services for patients, I would support the resolution both in principle and in fact. The time is long overdue for this government to develop a province-wide cancer strategy. But I do not believe the proposed merger will result in effective province-wide coordination of cancer services and cost savings.

In today's clippings, it was interesting to see the recommendation that was made yesterday. It says:

"Ontario needs the equivalent of at least two new major cancer centres if it is going to even attempt to keep up with treatment demands, a task force on cancer care was told yesterday.

"That may not be enough if the incidence of the disease increases beyond current projections, which are considered cautious by some members of the medical community, said Dr Tom McCowan."

McCowan, the chairman of the Ontario Medical Association

section on radiation oncology and also a practising cancer specialist at Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital, says, "We've got a planned shortage of 20 machines year after year until after the turn of the century.... One out of five patients who need radiation therapy year after year is not going to get it and others are going to have to wait longer than they should." This is a cancer specialist whom I'm referring to. He says, "There is implicit rationing in the system right now. We're going to have to start discussing explicit rationing of care."

"Dr William Mackillop, chief of radiation therapy at Kingston Regional Cancer Centre, suggested the Ministry of Health 'has not fully recognized the value of radiotherapy. The indications for radiotherapy are well established today and unlikely to change over the next 20 years,' he said, citing a long list of benefits associated with the treatment."

Another individual at that task force was Susan Copland, who told the task force of the toll taken on her and her family. "'The stress was unbelievable,' she said. 'I didn't sleep well. I didn't function well. To say that I was extremely upset is an understatement.'"

She was a 50-year-old mental health worker who was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago after undergoing a mammogram. She had a lumpectomy in the autumn of 1991 and radiation therapy was prescribed. But she was told that she would have to go to Thunder Bay and her treatments would start in November. The bottom line was she was able to have the treatment in Toronto but she had to wait until December.

"'It was a long, long emotionally draining fall,' said Copland. 'I firmly believe that good mental health is crucial to how cancer patients cope.'"

I think that

article really sums up the problem we have here in Ontario today. I say to the member for Halton Centre, bringing this resolution forward for debate in this House is worthy of consideration for this government to support this resolution.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's my pleasure to stand here this morning and debate the resolution as put forward by the member for Halton Centre. I can tell you that when I was elected to this Legislature one of the things in my riding that I thought I wouldn't be addressing was cancer care for my constituents.

I can share with you perhaps a private part of my life that I've never shared with anyone here before, until this morning -- and I think it's very appropriate -- that I, too, have been a victim of cancer on two occasions, and but for the grace of God and Princess Margaret Hospital, I'm able to stand in my place here this morning.

I have a real empathy, a real feeling. I know what it's like to get up in the morning and the first thing on your mind is, when am I going to get treatment? and the last thing on your mind when you go to bed at night is the same thing. When you get up the next morning it's the first thing on your mind. This goes on for weeks and weeks and weeks.

I can tell you that the effects on one's personality are absolutely amazing. You become a different person, because you are consumed with what's going to happen to you and how you're going to be treated.

I have great empathy with the system and the people, the care givers and the ones who give advice to you when you first walk in that door and receive the dreaded news that you have this dreadful disease, and how you cope with it.

Having shared that with you, and I didn't do it in any dramatic means, I just want to tell you that I do have tremendous empathy and feeling about cancer care. I do that in my riding. I represent part of Oshawa and in that riding, represented by my colleague the member for Durham Centre, is Oshawa General Hospital. They have a chemotherapy unit there. I've had meetings with those folks. It's traumatic, the people who go all over the riding, who get up in the morning. They start off at 5 o'clock in the morning and they get on buses and in cars to make their trek down to the Bayview centre or to the Princess Margaret Hospital.

All they're going to get is perhaps a minute of radiation treatment and may be there with five or six other people who've come down there. They wait until the different appointments go through the day and then they struggle back, in most instances, late at night, with a volunteer driver, only to repeat the process for the next day. In most cases the treatments last perhaps 24 days, 30 days, and they do this for that period of time. That is an awful, traumatic experience to go through for all that time.

I'd just like to give you some facts about Durham region in general. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of new cancer cases in Durham region that were registered at radiation therapy centres increased by 61%. The number of new cancer cases each year from the region of Durham will increase by 56% over the next 10 years, from 1,720 in 1991 to 2,680 by the year 2001. At the recently opened chemotherapy unit in Oshawa General Hospital, in 1992-93 there were 6,072 outpatient visits. That's 164% higher than the case load of just five years ago.

The only cancer treatment that's not available at present at the Oshawa General Hospital is radiation therapy. I for one, and I don't know whether it's my government's policy but I'm speaking as a concerned representative of the people in Durham East -- we are asking that this be considered, and considered very soon. I don't like to see people coming into my office in a state of despair about the delay in getting into various cancer treatment centres.

I think perhaps we could do some things with this resolution. Personally, I've got some difficulty recognizing the benefits that the merger would bring. It begs the question, to me, of, why merge these organizations. While we support the concept of a comprehensive, cooperative, coordinated system of cancer care -- and goodness only knows I do -- we believe perhaps we have to go much further in a cancer strategy than a merger of the two existing organizations.

I applaud the member for Halton Centre for bringing this forward. It's good that we debate these issues here and it's good that we debate them as individuals who represent various ridings across this province. That's what this is all about. I would like to ask the member if perhaps the two organizations hopefully can investigate the possible benefits and the adverse effects of such a merger.

We can do so much, I think, to prevent cancer. I maybe step outside my bounds as an MPP, but I'm always encouraging people who come to see me in a discussion, asking them, "When did you have a checkup?" They say, "I haven't been to the doctor for 20 years." So in a nice, roundabout way I say to them, "I really think you should go." This prevention and encouraging people to look after themselves is another aspect of this.

I'm very privileged to be able to speak and share my own personal experiences here with the House this morning.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to be able to speak to the motion standing in the name of my colleague and friend Mrs Sullivan, the member for Halton Centre.

It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Durham East who, like another politician of my acquaintance, speaks straight from the heart. I thought, as always, Mr Mills was very poignant and very helpful in his observations.

I too have been travelling with the Liberal task force on cancer care. Later this afternoon I'll be driving to Sudbury to participate in the hearings there tomorrow. I have been impressed, fascinated, troubled by a lot of what I've heard. My overwhelming impression is what a good system we do have and how incredibly effective a lot of providers and support groups are.

We were in London not too long ago, and as I think Mrs Sullivan may have commented in her remarks, the London regional cancer treatment facility, under the able direction of Dr Levin, and all the support groups and all the outreach were absolutely impressive, as I think we have found in Toronto and in Kingston and in Hamilton.

There are problems, and the problems are not everywhere the same. One of the things that's been identified in the hearings, and certainly was very, very directly spoken to by the president of the Ontario Medical Association, is this whole issue and the whole question of a coordinated approach to cancer care in the province.

Mrs Sullivan reminded me just a moment ago, and I'll ask her to correct me if I'm wrong, that something like 50% of all cancer patients in the province of Ontario are dealt with, are treated, outside of the formal system that is represented by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute. Am I not correct in that?

That means 50%, or a very large number of the cancer patients in Ontario, in communities like Frontenac and Renfrew and Durham and Toronto, are dealt with by other means: their local doctor, their local public hospital, their local physiotherapist or some other therapist or some other support group or treatment facility.

That's surprising to me, because I would have ima-gined the percentage of individuals outside of the formal system to have been much, much smaller. But roughly one in two patients with cancer in the province are treated by individuals or organizations outside of what we will call the formal system.

What Mrs Sullivan has tried to do in this motion is make the point that we must have better coordination. We must ensure that the very excellent and able leadership that is provided by the formal system -- the Princess Margaret, the Ontario Cancer Institute, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, and they are wonderful people with a tremendous record and a very considerable mandate -- that their standards, their leadership and their follow-up are provided not just to people inside the formal system but also the nearly 50% of cancer care that is provided outside of that system.

Dr Dickson, in his testimony before the Liberal task force committee yesterday, made a very compelling argument in support, I think, of the intent of Mrs Sullivan's resolution. That is one of the issues on which I am sure all members would want to support the member who has put the resolution in today.

As the previous speaker, Mr Mills, indicated, there is an enormous sensitivity throughout the province about cancer care. We need to assure to a greater degree than we have that there is one very good standard all across the province and that there is a coordination, there is a focus and there is a leadership to ensure that if you are a cancer patient in Sioux Lookout, Ontario, or in the west end of Toronto, you are going to be provided, within reason, with the same information, the same education, the same support and the same range of choices.

I say, in taking my seat to provide the few last moments to my colleague from Halton, the fact that we have at least 50% of cancer patients outside the formal system -- and we know, and the OMA testimony yesterday makes plain that there is worrisome evidence that there is an unevenness at the present time -- should give pause and should I think cause us all to want to support the resolution Mrs Sullivan has brought here today.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I'm very pleased to speak in this debate and I welcome the initiative of the member for Halton Centre in introducing this motion about a very important topic. If there were strong pressure from the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute to go ahead with this, I would be very supportive, but I gather that there are some reservations there.

I'd like to use this opportunity to say a few things relating to my personal experience which I think tend to be overlooked. I notice the use of the term "formal and informal systems," and I'm not sure if that's the best term. I have participated in what is referred to as the informal system both as a patient and a practitioner.

As a patient who has had a gastrointestinal malignancy, my treatment was entirely within the general system. I have had no contact that I know of with the so-called formal system, although I assume I am actually registered on the Ontario Cancer Registry, something which I think is extremely important and one of the things which I think we have to do much to encourage these bodies. Whether that is done by a merger, I'm not sure and I would like to be convinced of that, but we certainly do have a very important role for epidemiology, for types of research which can be best done, I believe, through these formal bodies.

I have so little time and there are so many things. Another important aspect of the informal system which I think cannot be underestimated is the palliative care system. I'm not sure how this proposal would help that, and indeed I'm not even sure whether it should. Palliative care certainly involves cancer, but it certainly involves other diseases as well. This is something where community practitioners have an enormous amount to offer. I think my medical colleagues, the nurses who work with them, do a wonderful job out in the community, and I don't think they would like to find themselves exclusively concerned with cancer.

I'd like to pay tribute to the Palliative At-Home Care Team in Scarborough, which is exactly that, and I believe in many ways is a leader in the province if not in the country in what can be done for palliative care at home.

This may involve the specialized agencies if there's chemotherapy, but I think there's a lot of basic medical care, helping families, helping relieve pain and suffering, which should be basic to all health practitioners, to all doctors really, to deal with what we know is a universal problem.

Mrs Sullivan: I appreciate the little extra time which my colleague has allowed me for summing up, and I want to thank those who have participated in the debate. I have listened to their comments and I believe that each one of them has brought thoughtful remarks to this issue.

With respect to the letter which Mr Wilson, the member for Simcoe West, brought to the floor, yesterday I spoke with Mr Ed King, chairman of the Princess Margaret Hospital, about this resolution and discussed his concerns about a signal which would be made by this House and the effect that signal would have on what is a very serious and large capital fund-raising campaign.

I assured him that the intent of this resolution was first of all to underline that the mandates of the OCI and the OCTRF would not be changed in a renewed structure. However, what was vitally important would be that the leadership, the expertise, the research capability was transferred in a logical and methodical way to the community and to community providers.

I believe that capital campaigns should not be affected. In fact, in my own community at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, we have a capital campaign for cancer care going on at the same time, and I would hope that a coordinated system through which donors would have their realistic assurance that we have a coordinated and comprehensive approach to cancer care would in fact enhance fund-raising drives.

I believe that we will never have an effective, efficient, multidisciplinary and multimodal approach to cancer control in our current scenario with the cancer system in one corner and those who work outside of the system in another corner. I believe that we need the expertise and the leadership of the OCI and the OCTRF involved in a new cancer agency, that the medical association and the hospitals must also be involved in a new cancer agency and that this organization should in fact put into place the programs and the administration of a cancer control system.

We must have across-the-province standards that are consistent in terms of principles for referral, for assessment of treatment and for follow-up of patients. I believe that these should be done with a minimum of government intervention by those who are involved as stakeholders, including patients, and I do urge that members of the House support the principle of this resolution and vote yes today.

The Deputy Speaker: The time that is provided for private members' public business has expired.

SENATE OF CANADA

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 37 standing in the name of Mr Perruzza. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Perruzza has moved private member's resolution number 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Perruzza has moved private member's resolution number 31. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Bradley, Callahan, Carter, Conway, Cooper, Cordiano, Curling, Duignan, Fletcher, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Johnson (Don Mills), Kormos, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, O'Connor, Offer, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sutherland, Tilson, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Nays

Daigeler, Sullivan.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes being 44, the nays 2, I declare the motion carried.

CANCER TREATMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 38 standing in the name of Mrs Sullivan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Sullivan has moved private member's resolution number 29. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will adjourn until 1:30.

The House recessed at 1211 and resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a letter from one of my constituents which calls for appropriate government action.

"I am writing this letter to express my concerns regarding the cutbacks in Ontario's health care system. I am 51 years of age and suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. I have had two hip replacements and am awaiting surgery to replace my knees. Upon reading my local newspaper, the St Catharines Standard, I was outraged to see that replacement surgeries were not listed among those considered crucial. Speaking from experience, I consider these procedures very important. Anyone living with the intolerable pain would agree that long waiting periods for surgery are inhumane and insulting.

"On a recent trip to the hospital I learned that the orthopaedic wards at both of St Catharines's hospitals have been closed. Since I am waiting for surgery in this area, this knowledge obviously frightens me. I have recently heard rumours that the surgeon that did both my hip replacements is leaving for the United States to practise medicine....It scares me to learn that competent medical doctors are being forced out of the country due to the lack of funding, and as a consequence the necessary professional service is suffering.

"I believe that one person's medical treatment cannot be considered more important than another person's given that all of the working class population contributes to health care fund through taxes....

"I think it should be brought to the attention of the government that orthopaedic surgery often pertains to elderly people. It is as unethical and disgraceful to discriminate against age as it is to do so on race, colour, religion etc. In closing, it is my wish the medical cutbacks be reviewed and changes made that will benefit all."

I agree with this statement and call upon the government to take appropriate action.

TVO FUND-RAISING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to congratulate TVOntario and its volunteers for their efforts in raising funds through TVO's membership drive, which wraps up this Saturday. The public is also to be commended for showing its financial support and its interest in the type of programming TVO offers.

TVO's goal of raising $350,000 from its on-air membership campaign has already been surpassed. The funds will go towards maintaining the type of quality programming which people in Ontario have come to enjoy. In today's economic climate when government deficits mean funding cutbacks, it is especially important and refreshing to see the public coming through voluntarily to fill in the gap.

TVO continues to provide innovative and excellent educational programming. Shows like Bookmice, Polka Dot Door and Mathica's Mathshop delight, entertain and educate children. Adults tune in to current event shows like Between the Lines, which many of the members watch religiously, and movie buffs enjoy Saturday Night at the Movies.

I want to once again wish congratulations and my best wishes to the volunteers and crew at TVOntario as they continue their successful on-air membership drive.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'm very pleased with the Minister of Health's announcement today regarding dialysis treatment. This announcement has an important impact for many of the people of my riding. This expansion of dialysis services to an independent health facility means that the people in the rural part of my riding will have the opportunity to access this life-saving treatment while not having to travel far from home. This is important not only for my constituents but for many people in the eastern GTA who will have this essential service brought closer to them.

The Ministry of Health will fund 36 dialysis treatments a week in an independent outpatient clinic in Markham. Service should begin in February. This means that people who otherwise might have to stay in hospital to receive dialysis will be able to receive it on an outpatient basis and be able to spend more time at home with their families. That point alone has many health benefits.

I am concerned to hear, though, that the number of people in need of the treatment is increasing at an annual rate of about 10% and that the number of organs donated has declined. I believe that the real answer is the organ transplant program as, although dialysis treatment is a lifesaver and this outpatient clinic in Markham will provide some freedom to those who need the treatment, organ transplant will really give these people back their independence, which they so desperately need.

I am hopeful that more patients will benefit from kidney transplants as a result of the development of a plan by Multiple Organ Retrieval and Exchange Ontario, a plan that is funded by this government. In the meantime, however, the government is committed to ensuring dialysis treatment is readily available as part of our overall commitment to preserving health care in this province. The funding the Ministry --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I want to bring to the attention of the House what I believe is an extremely important matter, not only in my constituency but in terms of health care planning.

Ten per cent of the population of Burlington receive their primary care from a physician-sponsored health service organization called the Caroline Medical Group. This practice provides multidisciplinary care in an innovative way involving a variety of health care practitioners. It has been the model for alternate funding for physicians, and the staff of 32 full- and part-time workers and five physicians are dedicated to providing comprehensive care to keep people out of hospital. Services provided emphasize ambulatory care, health promotion and home-based treatment programs.

Early diagnosis, including breast screening and cervical cancer screening, drug utilization and other areas, such as an in-the-home care program, a home intravenous antibiotic program and so on, are very much a part of their activities.

Their funding has been cut by 35.6%. With those cuts, which are extremely shortsighted, not only will this program and this particular group fail, but so will the entire experiment in Ontario with alternative funding models in health care delivery. This government should be ashamed of itself.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it concerns his Sewell commission and the concerns on planning and development reform in Ontario.

Municipal governments throughout Ontario worked with the Sewell commission during the consultative process to ensure planning is more accountable, efficient and fair in terms of public participation. They believe changes to the planning system must provide flexibility to allow for regional and local differences and to ensure Ontario remains strong from an economic, social and cultural perspective. Changes must foster a perception in the marketplace that Ontario is open for business.

However, the NDP government's overrestrictive policies, regulations and a lengthy approval process have weakened the province's competitive position and discouraged economic development at a time when it is most needed.

Municipal governments warn that most of the Sewell commission's recommendations will not assist in the recovery in Ontario. In fact the collective impact of new official plans at every level, intervenor funding, comprehensive watershed studies and environmental impact studies will result in more uncertainty and significant delays in approving new, well-planned developments.

I support Ontario's municipalities that are demanding extensive public consultations on all provincial policy statements and all amendments to the Planning Act recommended by the Sewell commission. This commission should be abandoned.

OKTOBERFEST WOMEN OF THE YEAR

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm sure all members are aware of Kitchener-Waterloo's Oktoberfest. Today, I'm pleased to rise and inform members of the Oktoberfest Women of the Year recipients.

The 12 women recognized this year are all exceptional in their areas. The categories and recipients are as follows: for young adult, Shalene McCreary; volunteerism, Valerie Corcoran; sport and recreation, Marg Kirkoran; seniors, Helen Fowler; professional, Jean Brett; multicultural, Gehan Darwash Sabry; humanitarian, Sue Coulter; homemaker, Barb Da Silva; employee, Margaret Stahle; business/entrepreneur, Sonia Adlys; art/history/literature, Mary Ann Horst; and for advocacy, Donna Reid.

During our Oktoberfest celebrations these women were recognized by their peers, friends and families and I had the pleasure of attending a reception in their honour. These women have dedicated themselves to the greatest form of expression. It is a message that spills forth from them for their community, for Ontario and for Canada. As Ontarians, we are beginning to recognize the excellence that is inherent in our province and we are beginning to stand up with pride for what we believe in and for what our province represents. Nowhere is that more evident than in these recipients and the other women who were nominated in these categories.

I would like to take a few moments to invite all members to the December 6 candlelight vigil and service, if there's one being held in their area. Donna Reid, the recipient in the advocacy category, has set up the December 6 coalition for Waterloo region.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Yesterday Ontarians received the news that Ontario's credit rating was downgraded again. This makes the third time in three years that Ontario's credit rating has been downgraded under Bob Rae's government.

Ontario lost its AAA rating back in 1991, then the province was downgraded in 1992 and now a further downgrade occurred yesterday. The fiscal performance has been woeful under this government, but at least the Finance minister knows the facts, unlike the leader of the third party.

The Conservative leader stood in this House yesterday and said, "These are the same bond rating agencies that for 42 years gave us an AAA rating when Progressive Conservative governments managed the affairs of this province."

As with many things economic, when the leader of the third party speaks, he has a simplistic but often erroneous

interpretation of the facts. In reality, Ontario only had an AAA credit rating for 11 -- yes, that's 11 -- years of the 42 years of Conservative rule in this province. From 1943 until 1977, a total of 31 years, Ontario had either an A or an AA rating. In fact, during the first 23 years of Conservative rule, the credit rating was an A, lower than the current level under the NDP.

So when the Conservative leader stands in the House and talks about the AAA credit rating under the Conservatives, Ontarians should realize that, as with the Helle Hulgaard scandal, the leader of the third party has spoken before checking his facts.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): This morning I attended a meeting of the Safe School Task Force to address the serious problem of now crisis proportions of violence in our schools. Present were teachers, students, trustees and Metro Toronto Police Chief Bill McCormack, who expressed his frustration at being faced with $22 million in budget cuts and potential layoffs of about 400 officers. These cuts will seriously undermine, if not totally cancel, the ability of the police to deal sensitively with school violence through the Metro Toronto street youth crime unit.

After months of neglect of the problem of school violence, the only assurance that this Minister of Education and Training could give the task force this morning was a promise of $25,000 to reprint and distribute the Safe School Task Force report and to convene a conference to discuss the issue some time next year.

Everyone -- I mean everyone -- at that meeting agreed that new partnerships must be formed in order to turn around this most serious problem which has been ignored by this government for far too long. The announcement by the minister today is nothing more than an attempt at crisis management and a deplorable display of funding priorities: to commit only $25,000 when his government gives $4.3 million for an indoor, in-ground, swimming pool with other recreational upgrades for convicted young offenders at the Syl Apps detention centre in Oakville.

It is time for this government to wake up and to take notice of what is happening in schools across Ontario today. As Chief McCormack put it to the committee and to those assembled this morning, "You can invest now in crime prevention in our society or else society will pay later with the additional and unacceptable human costs involved by ignoring this problem."

JOE BELCOT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to a man who has kept sports alive in West Lincoln for more than 35 years: Joe Belcot of Smithville.

This tireless community volunteer is credited with founding the Niagara Peninsula Softball Association, the West Lincoln Minor Hockey Association and the township's recreation committee. There isn't enough time to list all of Joe's other sports-related accomplishments. Let's just say that at least three generations of athletes know him on a first-name basis.

Last week, Joe was recognized for his dedication to sports. The region of Niagara sports initiative committee selected him for the Investors Group Community Sports Administration Award. He accepted the honour last Wednesday night during a ceremony at White Oaks Inn and Racquet Club in St Catharines. The award recognizes his tremendous contribution to sports in West Lincoln.

A familiar face around Smithville, Joe has served all facets of his community. He has long been involved with the local Lions Club, serving many years as president, and is a member of the local chamber of commerce. Joe recently devoted countless hours to organizing the annual Lions Club food drive.

On behalf of the people of Lincoln, I offer my heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Joe Belcot, a fine citizen indeed.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise under standing order 38(

a) to bring to your attention that later this afternoon I will be introducing a bill to deal with water extraction, which has been a very big problem in my area. Although it says that no notice is required to introduce this bill, I wanted to alert people that this bill was coming later this afternoon and I've asked for your good grace to allow me to make that pre-statement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No, you can't do that. The member knows he doesn't have a point of order, but indeed he's provided a courtesy to the House and to the Chair and I appreciate that.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could be permitted by my colleagues to make a statement on the white ribbon campaign.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I rise today to recognize the launch of the white ribbon campaign. The campaign focuses on men's responsibility to end violence against women.

This year's campaign will run from November 27 to December 3. Its task is to educate men about their collective responsibility to end violence. As men, we join with the thousands of women working to end violence against women, and our responsibility is great.

Violence against women affects all women. It is not more prevalent in certain cultures or groups of people. It happens in small communities and large, and it happens in good economic times and bad.

Today we have more evidence than ever that ending violence should be our most important social responsibility. Women fear the dangers of violence when they walk alone in the dark and they fear the dangers of violence in their intimate relationships with men.

Women's fears are real. We know that one half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incidence of violence since the age of 16 and that one out of every four women has experienced violence in the hands of her current or past marital partner. As men, we must take responsibility to tell other men that this violence is wrong and that there is no excuse to use violence to vent frustration or to solve arguments.

Women have broken the silence and come forward and named the violence. Now men must break their silence and challenge other men who use violence in their relationships with women.

We must also challenge sexist jokes and language that degrade women and we must identify and challenge sexual harassment in our workplaces and schools. Each of us must take on this challenge with our families, friends and co-workers.

Members of my caucus wear a white ribbon today as our personal pledge never to commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women, and we commit today to carry that pledge in all of our relationships.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise in support of the statement which my friend and colleague the Minister of Finance has just made, and I would like to respond from my own caucus to add a few more comments.

One of the things that so often occurs when we talk about this issue of violence against women, particularly the responsibility of men in that, is that so often many men will back off and say, "Well, I'm not guilty of that in my own life, so don't raise it, don't discuss it."

I think the minister used the term "responsibility," and that is the word we need to look at in terms of, what is our responsibility, as men, in trying to make sure that this kind of violence does not continue and that we really can establish a zero tolerance of violence against women? That is where we as men have a very important role to play.

In the material which the white ribbon campaign people have sent out, and I commend it to everyone, they talk about the kinds of things which we as men can do within our communities, that we can do with other men that we can apply in terms of ending violence of all kinds, whether it's violence in the school yard, violence among children, violence against other men. But more specifically, here we are talking about violence against women.

Two years ago, when they launched this campaign, it was interesting that in the comments the organizers made they said that if it were between countries we'd call it a war, if it were a disease we'd call it an epidemic, if it were an oil spill we'd call it a disaster, but far too often we're afraid almost to call it anything or to discuss it or to admit the reality that is out there."

Again, as the minister pointed out, the statistics from the study that was presented to the federal government just a week or 10 days ago underline a reality that we simply must accept in terms of the fact that it happens and then really commit ourselves to making sure that won't happen again.

Maybe the best way for us as men to understand it is to think of our own families, to think of our wives, to think of our daughters, to think of our mothers. Just yesterday, in talking with my own daughter, who's in her early 20s, she was telling me that on the weekend she was going to be babysitting for some friends, for their children, in another place some 30 to 40 miles away from where she lives. She said to me, "Could I borrow your car, which has a phone in it? I will feel I have more protection."

I said to myself, as a father and as a man, that so often for those of us who are males, we don't think in those terms, yet here was my daughter, who, in organizing her life, in trying to plan sensibly, is just saying, "If I've got the possibility of a car that has a phone in it, that's probably better in case something happens to the car." As a father, it just made me stop, sit down and say, "Okay, there is the reality; that's what we're talking about."

For those of us who are men, let's not worry about wandering around saying, "I'm not guilty," or, "Why should I be involved in this? This is just stuff that doesn't directly refer to me." It does, and it does simply in the sense that we bear a responsibility and we can, in our own actions, do something about it. I think that is what the Minister of Finance was saying. I think that's what we all want to say. That's why we want to join in this campaign to make sure our zero tolerance finally will end up where there will not be these statistics of violence against women and we will have really achieved something.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): It is with some sadness that I rise to speak on behalf of my caucus on the issue of violence against women. I find it very sad indeed that we live in a society where we have to have an annual awareness campaign on this issue, that despite the advances we've been able to make in so many areas of social justice, we still have to remind each other that no man has the right to raise his hand against a woman.

It's a sad commentary on the kind of society we live in that in these times we still witness events like the one four years ago in Montreal when 14 women were slaughtered for no other reason than because of their gender. It's truly saddening that we are all so familiar with names like Leslie Mahaffy, Kristen French, Nina de Villiers. Equally saddening, there are thousands and thousands of other women who continually suffer at the hands of violent men, women who are not household names but who suffer none the less.

So again we rise to mark this grim but necessary week. It's often true that where there is grief and sadness there is also cause for hope. I believe that is where the emphasis of White Ribbon Week should lie: in the hope that the awareness campaign will pay off; in the hope that the incalculable toll that violence against women takes on individuals, on families and on all of us as a society will grow smaller with each passing day, each passing month and year; and in the hope that White Ribbon Week may soon change in meaning from an