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

December 16, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L139 - Mon 16 Dec 1996 / Lun 16 Déc 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

LET'S TALK SCIENCE

TOONIE SCULPTURE

TVONTARIO

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

PAY EQUITY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OMA AGREEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

EDUCATION FINANCING

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ONTARIO WORKS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

COMMUNITY WITNESS PROGRAM

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

R.L. HEARN GENERATING STATION

BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES ADMINISTRATIONS LOCALES

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH

EDUCATION FINANCING

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

RETAIL STORE HOURS

USER FEES

ADULT EDUCATION

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

PROTECTION OF TEMAGAMI

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BOXING DAY SHOPPING ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS LE LENDEMAIN DE NOËL

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1996 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE (N O 2)

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Parents in my riding are very worried about the future of education. They are worried about their children's future. Parents and teachers want to know how your massive cuts will affect them, they want to know what will be the consequences of school board amalgamation, and they certainly want to know what will be the effect on the classroom.

LET'S TALK SCIENCE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Today I want to share with members of the Legislature the wonderful success of the Let's Talk Science program which began at the University of Western Ontario under the leadership of Dr Bonnie Schmidt.

Let's Talk Science is an award-winning science education outreach program which trains volunteer university students and professional scientists to lead elementary and secondary students through hands-on activities and interactive experiments in classrooms and in after-school clubs. The purpose is to make science accessible, exciting and fun and to encourage students to see themselves in the role of scientists.

Started with only 10 volunteers, the program now has 11 full-time and part-time staff members and 300 volunteers who coordinate five different programs for students from age 3 through young adulthood. Supported initially by the Lawson Foundation, which gave a two-year startup grant, the program has been so successful that it has won new partners. On December 5, the program received a $1-million grant from DuPont Canada to enable the program to become national in scope. Lynn Williams, manager of public affairs for DuPont Canada, described Let's Talk Science as a crucial program aimed at getting people into science and research so that we can remain competitive in the knowledge economy.

Bravo to Dr Schmidt, to the University of Western Ontario, to all the corporate sponsors and to all the volunteers for creating and carrying out a program which has been declared a national success story.

TOONIE SCULPTURE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending an unusual festival of holiday lights ceremony in Campbellford. In addition to its seasonal display, the town unveiled a 20-foot-high sculpture in lights of the new Canadian $2 coin. The sculpture celebrates the polar bear side of the coin in the form of hundreds of gold and silver lights reflecting in the Trent River. It is truly spectacular to see and it shows that even a base metal "doubloonie" can have a silver lining.

The coin sculpture will become a permanent feature in the town's Old Mill Park. It has a special significance for the town of Campbellford and for one resident in particular, Brent Townsend. Mr Townsend is the talented Ontario artist who won the competition to create a polar bear design for the $2 coin. I extend sincere congratulations to my constituent for his award-winning work. His artistic skill has assured him a place in Canadian numismatic history.

I also extend my congratulations to the town of Campbellford, the town's public works crew and the chair of the $2 coin display project, Lillian Turner. In celebrating Mr Townsend's design, these imaginative people have also created a new and lovely attraction for their town.

I would urge the public and all members of this House to put the Campbellford toonie display on their must-see list for 1997.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): This past weekend a full-page ad appeared in the Toronto Star calling on Premier Harris not to privatize TVOntario. The ad featured 254 names of leading Canadians from the world of arts and literature, film, labour, health care and business, all opposed to the privatization of Ontario's educational channel.

The intent of this ad, which is right here, placed by the Canadian Independent Film Caucus, was to draw the attention of all members of this House to the broad support TVO has across the province.

From my part of the province, Elinor Barr, a well-known writer, added her name to the impressive list, as did Margaret Phillips, owner of the Northern Woman's Bookstore in Thunder Bay, and Bruce Hyer and Margaret Wanlin, two more caring individuals from my community.

They all want me to hold it up, Mr Speaker.

What we are all trying to say is that TVO is indeed this province's cultural treasure and that it belongs to all of us, whether we are from a first nations community in northern Ontario or from the heart of downtown Toronto. It is becoming more clear every day that the majority of the people in this province are proud of TVO and they want to keep supporting it because of what it gives us and how it sends a message around the world about our people and our province.

Not everything can be reduced to dollars and cents. Some things are precious to a people's sense of who they are. TVOntario gives us that sense of who we are and it proudly belongs to all of us. Let's keep it this way. I call on everyone in the province who cares about TVO to contact their MPP today and let their voice be heard.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I don't know, Mr Speaker; it looked like a prop to me.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Rumours are abounding in this Legislature and in this fine city of ours that this week, perhaps as early as tomorrow, the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be bringing forward a piece of legislation that will end the structure of local governance as we know it in the cities that make up Metro Toronto and will create one large -- as it's been referred to -- megacity.

We have to wonder where the advice is coming from, where the motivation is coming from. All the studies that have been done, and the minister's right to say that this question has been studied many times, the Golden report, the Crombie report, all suggest that the problems that exist are in the coordination of services and equity in property taxation across the GTA. So if the problem is across the GTA, it's hard to understand how Metro amalgamation could be the answer.

We see now that the minister, because we've been asking for the studies that prove his case, has gone out and hired consultants, and you all know that with consultants, if you want a certain answer, you can get the consultants who will provide that answer, and I am quite sure we will see this week those reports coming forward from the consultants suggesting that there is money to be saved.

But again we must ask, who did they consult with? We see today that the fire chiefs in cities within Metro have said they haven't been consulted about amalgamation and that it will be worse in terms of delivery of services. Once again the government moves ahead without talking to the people involved.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Two weeks ago I introduced Bill 100 to this Legislature. This bill,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Impaired Driving Offences, passed first reading on November 26.

The bill would impound vehicles and snowmobiles for 90 days if the operator blows over 0.08 blood alcohol content or fails to provide a breath sample. The impounding would coincide with the administrative licence suspension. For repeat offenders, the penalty is more severe. On the second and subsequent offences, the vehicle is auctioned, similar to fishing and hunting violations.

Hunting and fishing violations result in equipment and vehicles being seized and auctioned off on the first occurrence. Surely repeat impaired offenders represent a more serious and potentially catastrophic violation than catching a fish out of season.

Forty-seven per cent of all vehicle fatalities are caused by impaired drivers. Nearly two people per day die in Ontario as a result of impaired driving. The human misery and suffering is incalculable. I've seen victims who have been maimed by these senseless acts. I've talked to victims' families who regularly relive the horror and grief.

Similar legislation exists in Manitoba and British Columbia. Impaired convictions have dropped 30% in those provinces. Mothers Against Drunk Driving supports this bill. Christmas and New Year's is a time of festivities and celebrations. I introduced my bill to let the celebrators know that an impaired driver is a potential killer, a killer and maimer of people, a killer of hopes, dreams, goals and fulfilment. Please don't drink and drive.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have had a number of calls from constituents in my riding whose children attend Cardinal Newman high school. It's a unique situation where you have a high school that has two campuses, approximately 10 kilometres apart.

It is a high school that has 24 portables and it has almost 1,500 students. It has been a difficult situation for the past 10 years with these schools, with this type of distance, where students have had to go back and forth and often spend more of their day travelling between two schools than sitting in classrooms.

It's an issue where the previous government and the government before that had committed capital funding to ensure there's a new school on one site. I know my colleague from Wentworth East as well has been involved in trying to convince the minister that this funding be freed up, and I urge the government to as soon as possible announce and free up the funding for Cardinal Newman secondary school in the city of Hamilton and the city of Stoney Creek.

These are unbearable circumstances where we have 24 portables, where we have a school where children have to travel 10 kilometres in between classrooms. It's probably the most unique situation in the province of Ontario where one school has two sites 10 kilometres apart. We cannot continue to tolerate this. I know parents who have called me in my riding, where many of the feeder schools into Cardinal Newman work, find this a very difficult, unacceptable situation. The students, parents and teachers must be commended for the great job they have done under these very difficult circumstances over the years.

I ask this government and this minister to please immediately announce the funding free-up for Cardinal Newman secondary school.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Although the Harris government has taken away some pay equity rights and is planning more attacks on the principle of equal pay for women, the fact is that pay equity law is still on the books of this province.

For example, under the pay equity plan at the Lakehead Association for Community Living in Thunder Bay, the employees are entitled by law to increases that total $85,000 for 1995 and $170,000 for the current year. The workers and the employer agree on these figures. The problem is that the Minister of Community and Social Services is refusing to pay the money that is owed.

When is this government going to start respecting the law of Ontario and pay what these women are entitled to? The fact is that the Lakehead Association for Community Living entered into a five-year agreement on pay equity back in 1993. What this government is doing is shameful. They're lowering the standard of living and pay for all workers just to cover their wacky tax scheme. Where's the respect for the law and where's the principle of pay equity for women in this province? When will these workers get the pay they are entitled to?

I see that the Minister of Community and Social Services is here and I would ask her today to see to it that these women get the money they're owed.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I wish to inform all members of this House about an innovative workplace safety program occurring in my riding called the Greater Peterborough Safe Community Incentive Program. Many local stakeholders have joined efforts to create the Greater Peterborough Safe Communities Coalition to work with the Workers' Compensation Board to promote and improve workplace safety.

This incentive program has been designed to help businesses with up to $90,000 in annual WCB assessments to promote workplace health and safety. When a company registers with the safe community program, it will become part of a community group experience rating plan. This group will be eligible for 75% of any savings in its accident costs due to enhanced health and safety programs: Good for business, good for workers.

As of last Friday, there have been approximately 42 local companies willing to take

part in this program. I am pleased that the program is now in its final approval stage, and we anticipate it up and running very soon.

This type of local initiative is a positive approach. Let me congratulate the local chamber of commerce, various levels of government, workers' groups, health professionals, and all other participants for their efforts in making our places of work safer.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OMA AGREEMENT

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I am pleased to rise today to inform the House of a tentative interim agreement reached yesterday between the government and the Ontario Medical Association.

Above all else, yesterday's tentative agreement represents a win for Ontario patients by ensuring their access to physicians' services and putting an end to any uncertainty that may exist. Acceptance of the agreement is contingent upon physicians' resumption of normal practice.

Contained in the agreement is a new proposal to address the long-standing problem of attracting physicians to areas where they are needed. This new proposal responds directly to concerns brought forward by the Ontario Medical Association by offering financial incentives to attract new physicians to underserviced areas and disincentives to practise in overserviced areas.

The tentative agreement also works to protect the delivery of medical services by reducing the recovery on payments to physicians from 10% to 2.9% and provides financial assistance for malpractice insurance, as recommended by Chief Justice Dubin. The agreement also simplifies payment levels or thresholds for physicians and calls for the establishment of an independent commission to reassess the fees paid to doctors for their services.

In announcing a tentative agreement, I want to recognize the efforts and commitment of the former Minister of Health, the member for Simcoe West, Jim Wilson. Without Mr Wilson's months of hard work and dedication an agreement would not have been possible.

This agreement represents a successful first step towards a comprehensive deal with Ontario's physicians and clearly demonstrates our ability to work together to put patients first and ensure that patients have access to medical services.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The goal of our caucus is always to do whatever we can to ensure that patients have access to the care they need when they need it. While I've listened very carefully to the minister's statement today, I'm not at all certain that this is a win for patients. He has not told us, for example, whether this will mean delisting of services or deinsuring of services. He has not told us what this is going to do overall to their policy of caps and thresholds and clawbacks and holdbacks.

Those caps and clawbacks and thresholds and holdbacks have angered and frustrated physicians across this province, and I fear that the morale problem that exists may not be resolved by the minister's statement today.

I hope that the Canadian Medical Protective Association problem, which was created by the former Minister of Health, is finally resolved. I'm waiting to see what Mr Dubin recommends and suggests, because we have always believed that the former minister acted in bad faith when it came to the malpractice insurance payments for doctors in this province.

People are beginning to realize the cost of your policies, but unlike you, they also know that the former minister was a barrier to achieving any kind of good-faith agreement, because in order to reach an agreement you have to have good-faith negotiations. The former minister insulted and bullied the doctors of this province and they were rightly angered by the treatment.

What I'm hearing from people across this province, and quietly from members of the Conservative back bench, is that they are concerned about hospitals being closed in their ridings. They are concerned, as we are, that nurses are being laid off as a result of the government's policies. They know that user fees hurt those people who can least afford to pay them, and user fees are a reality of the Harris government. They also know that there are very significant cuts in service and emergency care across this province.

That is a concern to us and it should be a concern to the government, because what people are telling me and my colleagues is that they would rather have their cherished health care, they would rather have their nurses on duty in their hospitals and providing care and services in their communities, they would rather have access and the security of access to services they need when they are sick and they need them, they would rather have those things than the unhealthy 30% tax cut which the Harris government is bringing forward and which they know is resulting in enormous cuts to health care in this province.

It is resulting in hospitals closing, it is resulting in people not having access to the care they need when they need it, and it is resulting in huge morale problems of the people who are providing the care in every community of this province.

The appointment of a new Minister of Health gives this government the opportunity to change its course, but as I listened to the minister's statement today, I fear they have not changed that course and that what they will continue to do is to delist, deinsure, see that nurses receive pink slips and are laid off, close hospitals and create the kind of insecurity and uncertainty that is very unhealthy in the province.

I would ask the minister to intervene and stop the $1.3-billion cut to our hospitals. I would ask him to ensure that 15,000 nurses are not laid off. I would ask him to ensure that hospitals are not closed and that communities are not left vulnerable as a result of their actions. I would ask the new minister to stop the out-of-control, unaccountable Health Services Restructuring Commission, which is devastating community after community in this province. I would ask him to restore the loss of quality, accessible health care so that the people of this province can once again have some security that when they get sick, care will be there for them when they need it.

The minister says this is just the beginning of a new negotiation. I would say to him, unless he changes course, it is in fact the end.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): While we're all pleased in the province that this crisis has come to an end for the time being, I think it's important that we review what's happened over the last several months.

This whole process has been handled in an incredibly incompetent manner. We started off the process months ago with cuts that the government unilaterally announced in order to achieve its tax cut, and that was the whole purpose of the cuts. We also saw that there were very significant reactions from the doctors. The doctors revolted, stopped taking new patients, and the minister said in the House in the spring and last winter, "Don't worry, we have contingency plans." As it turned out, the contingency plans were, "Send patients to the US" and "Patients won't have any access to the health care system."

The whole process has been marked by confrontation. The previous minister and the government have confronted and asked for a war with the doctors, and that's what we got. It finally resulted in a crisis being developed, and then what happened? Then the government all of a sudden said, "Okay, we'll sit down and we'll negotiate." Then it took the government three or four weeks to even get its negotiating committee together. Then there was a tentative agreement, and what happened to the last tentative agreement? The Minister of Health of the day decided to intervene in the agreement, in the ratification process.

He spoke out, he criticized doctors, just as he had in the spring. He called them greedy, told them, "Accept this agreement or we'll unilaterally impose the agreement," and the doctors said, "Enough of this. We're not going to deal," and they rejected the agreement.

The minister even tried to go to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and get that non-partisan, arm's-length body to intervene and do the government's dirty work, and they said: "We'll have none of this. We're not going to destroy our credibility because the minister wants to use us for political purposes." We had more withdrawal of services. Then a couple of weeks ago, in the middle of the negotiation process, what did we have? The ultimate: The minister's staff leaked billing information in a blatant attempt to bully the doctors of this province into doing it their way or taking the highway.

Now what do we see? Because the government finally saw that this was hurting them, hurting their popularity, hurting them with the public and that people were very concerned, the government, instead of trying to find long-term solutions, sat down at the negotiating table and basically gave the doctors a lot of things that do not resolve long-term problems that our health care system continues to face.

I would have thought that at the very least we could expect the Minister of Health today to come in here and say, "Here's the agreement," give a bit of an explanation of the agreement but also present to the Legislature a costing. This is supposed to be a government that says they do business in a business-like way. How much is this agreement going to cost the taxpayers? Where's the money going to come from?

The critic for the Liberal Party says it may come from delisting of items. I would suggest the people up in Sudbury today are saying that's where it's coming from: $40 million out of Sudbury today is part of the final announcement from the restructuring commission. There is $1.3 billion being cut in hospitals, with thousands of nurses and other health care workers being laid off. Those low-income health care workers are paying for this agreement today, an agreement that the minister won't even tell us how much it will cost, but we know it's in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, and this is simply an interim agreement.

We've got hospital closures, we've got nurse layoffs, we've got health care layoffs, we've got a system that is still in crisis, and the only thing we've got is a tentative agreement that the government says is going to resolve the problem of underserviced areas in the province. The fact of the matter is, if you take a look at the agreement, it will not solve the problem of underserviced communities. There's an attempt to use some incentives and some penalties, but if you take a look at it, it won't work.

There needs to some fundamental reform of the health care system. We need to move towards having an integrated health care system. We need to move towards a system that recognizes all the health care professionals and uses them to their maximum. We need to have a health care system that moves more radically away from the fee-for-service system in this province and moves to a system that uses capitation and salary and other mechanisms that will adequately compensate doctors but will also recognize that there are other professionals who need to be compensated. You can't compensate doctors at the expense of patients and hospitals and nurses.

This is a failure. The process has been a failure, and the minister didn't give all the goods in the House today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. It appears you've reached a deal with Ontario's doctors. Our concern is what it's going to cost patients. The last time your government had a tentative deal with Ontario's doctors, your predecessor was willing to force patients to contribute to the deal through over $50 million in new user fees and delisted services. Can you tell us how much this deal is going to cost Ontario patients, and more specifically, what medical services currently covered by OHIP will you force them to pay for?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): There are no current services covered by OHIP which are forced to be paid by the people of Ontario through this deal. This deal is one, though, I will assure the Leader of the Opposition, that does increase access to health services for the people of Ontario. Particularly in northern Ontario and many other parts of Ontario, we do not have a sufficient supply of doctors.

This deal will recognize that problem by providing about $45 million worth of incentives in a general sense to guide doctors into underserviced areas, and at the same time there's what is called a differential which in a sense penalizes new doctors from going into overserviced areas.

Mr McGuinty: I want to bring to the public's attention some of the fine print found in this deal. In that fine print, the government's going to create a new commission and the role of that commission will be to revise the

schedule of benefits. In other words, what we're talking about here is looking at delisting services. What this means is that there are medical treatments covered by OHIP today which we're going to have to pay for tomorrow.

People are already concerned that they're going to have to start paying for things like annual physicals. They're fearful that they'll not have access to services currently covered by OHIP. Minister, I want to give you an opportunity to allay those fears. Can you guarantee that your deal with the doctors will not force patients to pay for a single service currently covered by OHIP? Yes or no.

Hon David Johnson: Clearly, this deal does not force anybody to pay for any services, but this deal does allow for ongoing discussions with the physicians. As we've heard from the critic from the official opposition, there needs to be discussions with doctors. We're pursuing that and the Ontario Medical Association has made it very clear that those kind of discussions are needed.

We have committed, through the Ontario Medical Association, through the government, to looking at ways to make the health care system more effective, to look at ways to reduce costs at the same time as we're allocating costs for underserviced areas, for example. So the net benefit from this contract, from this deal, will be better access to more services across Ontario, more equally distributed, yet it will recognize the needs of the physicians in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: We can take it from this that we are definitely looking at delisting services and new user fees. What we're going to see is another manifestation of this government's breaking of its key election promise of no new user fees for health care in Ontario.

Minister, you're treading down, and you should know this, a very dangerous path. You're bringing us one step closer to substandard, two-tier, American-style health care. I want to ask you again, can you stand in your place and guarantee to the people of Ontario that you will honour your election commitment of no new user fees, that they will not have to pay out of pocket for any medical services currently covered? Can you guarantee that to the people of Ontario today?

Hon David Johnson: I'll give you the same guarantee we gave during -- as a matter of fact, before the election, during the election, after the election, that this government will adhere to the principles of the Canada Health Act. We have promised that. We have lived up to that.

Another promise I'll give to the Leader of the Opposition is the promise that we will protect the health care envelope. Indeed, before the election we indicated that we would protect the $17.4 billion, that we would protect the Canada Health Act. Today we find a government that remains committed to that. We have not only protected the health care envelope, we are spending $17.7 billion, $300 million more, even in the face of a reduction from Ottawa, from the federal Liberal government, of $2 billion in health care, even in the face of that reduction.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would care to talk to his colleagues in Ottawa, having reduced $2 billion. Even in the face of that, we live up to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister.

New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I guess we better get ready. Here they come, user fees and delisted services, a new part of health care in Ontario.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. I want to ask you about your government's plans to amalgamate Metro municipalities. By any objective measure this is a fundamental change that's going to have a profound impact on the lives of the people living in Metro for at least the next 50 years. It's going to directly affect the services they receive, their schools, their taxes, their sense of community and their quality of life.

Three and a half months ago, your government issued a report that stated, "Certain questions of public policy are so fundamental that they should be decided using referenda." Given the kind of change you're talking about, given that by any objective measure this is a most fundamental change, why will you not allow the people a say through a referendum on this very important issue?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the leader of the official opposition, he is indeed correct when he says that this is a very important issue with respect to Metro. The reality is that there have been numerous studies done on municipal government, and Metro municipal government in particular, over the last number of years. The time for action has long since passed. It is time you had a government at Queen's Park with the initiative to proceed to do what's in the best interests of the residents of Metro in the long term.

Mr McGuinty: I guess from the government's perspective you hold a referendum if you're going to get the answer you want, but if you're not going to get the answer you want, then you don't hold the referendum.

No one really believes the amalgamation is going to save money. Let me tell you what your friends at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation say: "The perceived savings are far less than the higher costs which would be associated with a megacity government."

There's no doubt about it, there are some very real concerns out there about your amalgamation and that in particular it's going to lead to higher property taxes. Minister, I want to give you this opportunity to allay those concerns. Will you add a provision to your legislation to guarantee that property taxes will not increase as a result of your amalgamation?

Hon Mr Eves: As he well knows, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has asked a very respected consulting firm, KPMG, to study the potential savings by having one level of government as opposed to several levels in Metropolitan Toronto. He has deliberately asked their numbers to be conservative, their approach to be cautious and prudent, as indeed we have tried to take that same approach with our fiscal situation in Ontario. We expect that report due back shortly, and I am sure that when that report is submitted it will be there for all to see what an independent consulting firm thinks of potential savings in this area.

Mr McGuinty: That's a very interesting study. I think it's rather unique in the annals of government studies. It's the first time we've ever given a consultant the conclusion and asked them to come up with the evidence that would support it.

In the last election Mike Harris pledged that a referendum must be held before raising taxes. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says your plan to amalgamate the municipalities in Metro is going to do exactly that. It's going to raise property taxes. Given that this is a fundamental change in the way people in Metro are governed, given that this was no part of the Common Sense Revolution -- in fact, as I recall, you promised the opposite -- and given that this will result in some people paying higher property taxes in Metro, I ask you again: Will you allow a referendum on your megacity before you ram this through?

Hon Mr Eves: Our government is about fewer politicians, less government, ending waste and duplication in the system, and we are confident that this will lead to savings for the taxpayer.

With respect to the issue of a referendum, you might want to read what your colleague the member for Hamilton East, Dominic Agostino, and Hamilton Centre member David Christopherson have to say about referendums: "Referendums are not useful in sorting out municipal restructuring. The danger is that you could end up where you govern by referendum all the time. That becomes costly and time-consuming." Their remarks, not mine.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Your Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been going on about how amalgamation will save money by merging fire departments and other services in the new megacity, and he's been boasting that your KPMG study will show $850 million in savings. But we also see Toronto Fire Chief Peter Ferguson saying that he hasn't been consulted on the megacity and neither, for that matter, have other fire chiefs in Metro. You haven't asked them how to save money and deliver service to make our homes and businesses safer, and the chiefs are worried, and they should be worried, that amalgamation will mean fire services will be reduced.

My question to you is this: How can your KPMG study have any credibility if the people who are carrying out the study won't talk to the people who actually put out the fires and deliver the other services in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mr Eves: As the honourable member well knows, we don't have the results of the KPMG study, and I presume --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): But you know how much money is going to be saved.

Hon Mr Eves: No, I have no knowledge of how much money that will save whatsoever. The results of the study will speak for itself. The results of the study, I say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, will speak for itself.

Surely we want to do something that is in the best interests of taxpayers, and fewer politicians and less waste and duplication in the system surely is going to lead to savings for the taxpayers not only in the province of Ontario but indeed in Metro as well.

Mr Silipo: The Deputy Premier says they want to do what's in the best interests of taxpayers, but I find it really interesting that they continue to refuse to talk to those same taxpayers. Is this another continuing case of Big Brother knows best and therefore you're just going to tell people what is going to go on, without talking at all to the people of the province who are affected by these changes and the people who are delivering these services?

Let's come back to the question of fire services. Toronto Fire Chief Ferguson says that Toronto needs specialized fire services because of the number of tall buildings in the downtown core, the number of tunnels in the core and the number of old buildings. The East York chief says if you're going to save $40 million, there's only one way to save it. That's 700 bodies, 700 firefighters gone.

You say you're not going to reduce fire services; we'll see all that's going to come out in the study. The people who put out the fire are afraid that that's exactly what you're going to do.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Silipo: I just want to ask you, what gives you and what gives the people at KPMG the right to say that you know better than they do whether fire services should be reduced as a way for you to carry out your agenda?

Hon Mr Eves: As the honourable member well knows, this entire issue of Metro governance will be going to committee. There will be an opportunity for the public in Ontario and indeed Metro to have input. They will have the opportunity to come and let their points of view be known. At the end of the day, that is how this process has worked in this House for many decades. As I said earlier in a response to a question by the leader of the official opposition, there have been over 60 studies in this area with respect to municipal governance. It's about time that action was taken.

Mr Silipo: There have been lots of studies; we don't disagree with that. The problem is you haven't followed any of those studies. We don't have any faith in you saying, "We'll bring a piece of legislation, we'll put it in front of committee and we'll listen to what people have to say." Your track record shows you don't hear what people say.

Are you telling me now that if people come before this legislative committee and tell you to a person that they are opposed, as they will tell you, to this megacity concept, that you're prepared to withdraw that proposal? Are you prepared to say that today? If not, why are you afraid to do in this case what you are so strong in promoting in other cases and put the issue to a referendum, as we have been saying and as 75% of the people in Metropolitan Toronto have been saying? Why won't you do that?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, there will be every opportunity, as I said in my previous answer, for public input, for people to come to committee and let their points of view be known.

With respect to amalgamation of fire services, the member will well know, being a resident of Metro Toronto, at one point in time there were many different police services in Metropolitan Toronto. They were amalgamated. Did police service go down because there's now one Metropolitan Toronto Police department? That rationale surely does not hold any water.

With respect to referendums, I'd refer the member to the remarks I made in my answer to the leader of the official opposition. He might want to talk to the member for Hamilton Centre and see what he thinks about referendums in this issue.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Health. Today the Health Services Restructuring Commission made its final announcement in Sudbury regarding health care in Sudbury and northeastern Ontario. The decision says there will be a net of $41 million taken out of Sudbury and northeastern Ontario for health care. At the same time, there is nothing specific about your government's commitment to community services, which are going to be absolutely essential because the hospital stays will be shorter and there will be more demands on the community, because that's not part of the commission's mandate.

Minister, people in that community are worried about the job loss and the gaps that are going to exist in the health care system. What is your government's commitment to community services?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): To the member for Windsor-Riverside, the report, as he mentioned, has just been delivered and I have just recently received that report. I'm studying it.

I think the report recognizes a couple of situations that the community has brought to the attention of the restructuring commission, and I'm delighted to see that it has. There are additional acute care beds, for example, additional mental health beds, additional operating rooms. In terms of the commitments, you can rest assured that this government will be looking at this issue over the next couple of weeks and, as we did in the case of Thunder Bay, there will be announcements in Sudbury early in the new year with regard to capital and with regard to reinvestment.

Mr Cooke: You haven't made any commitments to community services in Thunder Bay. You've made a commitment on capital, and that's it. The people in that community are concerned are well.

The CEO for the commission, Mr Mark Rochon, said today that the commission hasn't looked at community-based services. They do not know if the current provision of community care is sufficient to meet current needs or future needs. They do not know what the future needs will be, not only in Sudbury but in the entire region. They haven't put together the data. That's not part of their mandate.

You've just said that you're going to make an announcement within the next couple of weeks. What studies have you carried out in order to properly document the need for community services in that community and northeastern Ontario so that there won't be gaps, so that patients won't be out of hospitals more quickly with no services to go into? What are those services? What are those studies that you've carried out so that there aren't those gaps? Or are all these cuts simply to fund today the doctors' agreement and your tax cut?

Hon David Johnson: The announcements today in fact emanate from the government of the member for Windsor-Riverside. The member for Windsor-Riverside will know that a couple of years ago his government, then in place, put together some $26 million to fund the district health council reports, one of which is the one we're talking about from Sudbury. Those reports are coming in, indeed most of them came in to him and the previous government, in terms of restructuring.

His government was committed to restructuring, to using moneys more wisely, more effectively, to reinvest, and that's exactly what this government is going to do. We are simply following up, and wisely so, I would say, on the initiatives of the NDP government.

In the case of community care, for example, the government has announced, province-wide, $170 million in community care investment across the province. In the case of Sudbury in particular, the report having just been issued today, I will say a prudent course would be to look at that report --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister.

Mr Cooke: I'm glad the minister sees the wisdom of the commitments our government made to health care. Therefore, I would like to ask him, will he repeat the commitment our government made, that is, that every dollar saved through hospital restructuring will be reinvested in the community where the savings are achieved? Will you repeat that commitment today?

Hon David Johnson: The commitment of this government is well known, well known from before the election, during the election and after the election. In fact, we have committed to protecting the health care envelope, the $17.4 billion. Notwithstanding a reduction from the federal Liberal government, the health care envelope of $17.4 billion will be protected. You can bet that at the end of the day, before the next election, there will be at least $17.4 billion invested in all health care in the province. And one more thing you can count on: The system will be restructured and it will be a better system delivering better services to the people of the province.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health also. As your Health Services Restructuring Commission brought down its final axe on Sudbury, it was with great sadness that the people of Sudbury had to sit and watch as your government strips away the life and essence of health care in our community, leaving only a hollow shell where there once was a vibrant, reliable and accessible set of health care facilities.

In the Common Sense Revolution, you and your government promised that there would be no reduction to health care spending, not one cent. Let me tell you, the people of Sudbury are not going to be at all mistaken about that broken promise, as $40.7 million is taken out of the health care system in our community. You said not one penny; I'm telling you that's over four billion pennies.

My question to you is this: Where is the $40.7 million going? It's leaving Sudbury. Where is it going?

Hon David Johnson: I think I can understand the position of the member for Sudbury, him being where he is, but I would remind him that, for example, the head of Memorial Hospital emergency ward said, and this apparently was in the Sudbury Star of October 1: "Personally, I think this is a victory for the patients of Sudbury and northeastern Ontario. Someone has finally had the courage to bring common sense, some economic sensibility to a rather chaotic situation. In my view, the patients are going to be the winners in this."

Clearly, there are those in the health care system who understand the need to restructure, in Sudbury and right across the province. People know that at $17.4 billion, which we've agreed to protect, and this year in fact $17.7 billion, there is enough money in the system. What we have to do now is determine, with the assistance of the restructuring commission and experts, how do we use that effectively? That's what we're doing in Sudbury.

Mr Bartolucci: Let's not talk about one or two quotes, because I can get you hundreds of quotes from all over northeastern Ontario about the disaster you're causing, your havoc, that your health care direction is all wrong.

Let's talk about your figures, your directions and your recommendations. You exclude any dollars for a labour adjustment policy. Minister, your appointee to the commission, George Lund, said this morning that he estimates about 500 jobs will be lost due to restructuring. Furthermore, your Health Services Restructuring Commission has decreased the size of the system by 226 acute care beds and 197 beds in total, yet you make no mention of additional moneys for either repatriated or transitional care beds.

My question is twofold: What do you tell these 500 highly qualified health care providers who are about to be axed? Second, have you and your ministry calculated how many Sudburians and northeastern Ontario residents will have to travel south for treatment?

Hon David Johnson: I'm glad that the restructuring commission has had the opportunity to discuss its recommendations with the people of Sudbury and has amended its recommendations, has in fact added acute care beds, has added mental health beds, has added nine neo-natal intensive care beds. They have responded.

I think the situation is obvious, that all members of this House -- for example, the member's own leader, the Leader of the Opposition, is quoted as saying: "I would have as an overriding objective the improvement of our health care system, an integrated, universally accessible health care system. A component of that might be hospital closures."

Clearly, we all recognize the need to restructure to make the system more effective, and I believe that's what the restructuring commission has done in Sudbury.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury, you've got to come to order, please.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training with regard to the tabled report of the Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education. The panel recognizes in its first recommendation "the current serious inadequacies in total financial resources available to post-secondary education." Its second recommendation is that the provincial government's support for universities and colleges in Ontario should be comparable to the average for other Canadian provinces and be reasonably in line with government support of major public university and college systems in the United States.

My question is quite simple. What is the minister's response? Is he prepared to accept the recommendation and provide the resources to the post-secondary system -- colleges and universities -- required to make it comparable to the United States and comparable to the average in Canada?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member opposite for the question. Yes, in fact we have received the report on time from the Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education. Dr Smith and his panel have consulted with people right across the province who have a concern for post-secondary education. They presented us with some 18 thoughtful recommendations. I think they've addressed the questions we put to them and I'm very pleased to receive that report. I have not yet read the report in full.

I will do so in the immediate future and we will be responding to all their recommendations, including the recommendation alluded to by the member opposite.

I understand that the financing of post-secondary education in this province has been a subject of concern for many years. In fact, Ontario has been about 10th out of 10 provinces in terms of its funding as measured in the terms put by the member opposite. However, it's important to note that in this sector this government will commit $3 billion this year in total support, including support for students, which has been enhanced this year. We will digest this report and look at all those recommendations.

Mr Wildman: I guess I was hoping for too much. When the minister said yes, I thought he was just saying yes to the recommendation; unfortunately he was saying, yes, he'd received the report.

The minister says he's going to consider these recommendations. I want to draw his attention particularly to recommendation number 2, where the chair of the panel, Dr Smith, says, "The goal should be achieved by arresting reductions in government grants now." Arresting the reduction: While the minister says this has been a problem of long standing, I would point out that Dr Smith says, and said at the press conference, that colleges and universities in Ontario are about $480 million short of the average of other provinces in grants from this government.

Recognizing that the minister and his government have cut $430 million in funding to post-secondary education, that means all but $50 million of this is a result of this government. Is the minister prepared to restore the average, the $430 million he took out of --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know it strikes the member opposite, as he would say, as passing strange that a government would bother to read the report before responding to it, but that in fact is our posture.

I would point out to the member opposite again that there are many measures of support for that post-secondary sector in Ontario. Included in that are, additional, about $200 million in student supports directly that this government will be putting out over the next year, and of course a $100-million commitment to match private sector funding for an Ontario student opportunity fund.

So the funding for post-secondary comes from a variety of sources, and most important is the funding for our students. We will take this recommendation by the advisory panel seriously, as we will all 18 recommendations, and we will respond to them quickly because we believe the post-secondary sector in Ontario is important to the future of Ontario.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As you know, in 1965 Robert and Signe McMichael made a historic contribution to our cultural life by donating to the crown their fine collection of Tom Thomson and Group of Seven paintings along with the works of other selected artists. Over the past 30 years, the McMichael Canadian collection has provided us with a window on ourselves and our beautiful land, as seen through the eyes of our finest artists.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you, to the member for Wellington. The government is appealing the judge's decision because it essentially made the operations of the gallery unworkable. In other words, there were ongoing disputes with respect to new acquisitions and what the role of the trustees would be and what the viability of the gallery itself would be.

The government, I believe, has a responsibility to the public and to the many donors, including Michael and Signe McMichael, to ensure that the McMichael Canadian art gallery is effectively managed.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the minister for this explanation and add in reply that in the opinion of many people, the public interest will be served very well if this issue could be resolved through reasonable discussion rather than litigation. Will the minister today indicate her willingness to meet and work with the McMichaels to find a resolution to this matter?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Again, to the honourable member for Wellington, we do believe that a resolution to the issues surrounding the McMichael Canadian Art Collection can best be found through direct discussions with Mr McMichael. Indeed, Mr McMichael has indicated a willingness to join with us and work with us towards that goal.

On CBC television this past Thursday, Mr McMichael was quoted as stating, "I hope things will be resolved with a series of meetings," and I am delighted as they are willing to discuss this further.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Health. At the leaders' debate during the last election, Mike Harris said, "Well, certainly I can guarantee you that it is not my plan to close hospitals." That's what the now Premier said then. Minister, do you intend to honour the Premier's promise?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I think it's pretty clear that this government has lived up to its promises: its promises to protect health care; its promises to protect at least $17.4 billion, indeed $17.7 billion this year; its promise to protect the principles of the Canada Health Act, which we have done and which we remain committed to; and its promise to look at all aspects of government to make sure they're more efficient and deliver better services to the people of Ontario at reduced cost, except in the case of health care, where there will be at least as much money invested.

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Health will know that the Premier was very clear when he said, "Well, certainly I can guarantee you that it is not my plan to close hospitals." That was his quote and that's what he said. Therefore, Minister, you should be ashamed of that answer.

If it is the case that you proceed to close hospitals after what your Premier said, then I believe your Premier must resign because he also said very clearly in that election campaign that he would resign if he did not keep his promises, and his promises to the community hospitals were very, very clear.

The Conservative member for Lambton knows how important local hospitals are. Tomorrow he's sponsoring three busloads of people from Petrolia who are coming to the Legislature to remind the Premier of his promise. They're going to tell you that they want their local community hospital to remain open to provide care, especially urgent emergency care. We support and share their concerns.

Minister, what do you say --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member from Oriole, thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Come to order, please. When I stand, you must come to order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: What I would say to the people of Ontario is that we remain committed to the health care envelope. There will be at least $17.4 billion. We remain committed to spending that money effectively and wisely. We remain committed to the principles of the Canada Health Act, as we said we would.

On the other hand, if we look back in time to 1989, the government represented by the member opposite froze long-term-care beds, for example, in the province. Consequently, we've had no new long-term-care beds. This government is sitting down with the associations involved with long-term care and is trying to solve that problem.

Indeed, over the last several years, since the late 1980s, the number of beds in hospitals has been reduced first by the Liberal government, next by the NDP government, without addressing the capital structure. We are working with local communities to invest wisely so that our hospital care will be better, and we're doing that by protecting the health care budget.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. My office confirmed this morning, Minister, that Manpower temporary agency booked a boardroom at the Sheraton Centre last week for three days, where they set up a phone bank to work on the family support plan. This cost the taxpayers of Ontario $1.25 per local call plus long-distance calls, which added up to a total of $14,000.

Not only have you created chaos by shutting down the regional offices and laying off 290 experienced staff, with the result that thousands of women and children have not received their support, but now your efforts at damage control are costing the taxpayers of Ontario more unnecessary dollars. In addition to the severance costs and the costs to discharge regional office leases, the family support plan now pours money into phone companies, private hotels and private temporary agencies, but women and children still don't get their payments.

Is it now your ministry's practice to conduct government business outside of the already-paid-for government offices using temporary, untrained help from private agencies?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): What I can tell the member is that in the first week of December 1996, $15.8 million was sent to families. In the first week of December 1995 under the old plan, only $11.8 million was sent out. We are endeavouring to ensure that cheques that have perpetually come into the plan month after month in wrong fashion are going to be corrected by employers and income sources who are sending money in. We are endeavouring to move this plan closer to electronic banking so that we no longer have to deal with sorting cheques by hand and delaying payments to women and children.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, time and again we've raised case after case of women and children who were receiving regular payments from the plan until you closed the regional offices and laid off those staff. You repeatedly tell this Legislature that the problems with the transition have been fixed, but it's not the case.

On Friday, your assistant deputy minister of business improvement, ironically enough, Angela Longo, admitted to the Globe and Mail and National Action Committee representatives -- I'm quoting from the Globe and Mail -- that "many families are in dire financial straits as a result of paralysis within the family support plan, which funnels support payments from non-custodial parents to children. `We're in the process of making the program the best we can'.... `That'll take several months. We're in the middle of the process.'" She would not give any estimate of when the new plan would be fully operational or when families whose payments have been stalled can expect to get their money.

Minister, how can you stand here and ramble off figures about how many cheques you've mailed and how many calls the plan answered when your own assistant deputy minister cannot guarantee to women and children that they'll receive the support payments which have been deducted and submitted by --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: In fact, the amount of money that the plan is now paying out exceeds the amount of money that has ever been sent out by this plan before.

The other thing is that for a long time this plan has been allowed to operate when three out of four people who have orders with the plan were not getting the money they were entitled to, if they were getting anything at all. We have taken steps to correct those problems. We are also taking steps to answer what the auditor has said has been a problem with the technology in the plan, technology that is not adequate enough to get cheques out. We're correcting that and all of the other problems they left to us with a plan that didn't work.

ONTARIO WORKS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question. The member for Nepean.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Come on: a real question, John. Put a real question.

The Speaker: Well, let's just wait and see.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I always ask real questions, Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I was reading a column this morning in the Toronto Star, as I read every morning. This column talked about an inspirational story about a single mother getting off welfare. The column attributes her success story to job counselling, child care and training programs. This seems to make very good sense to me and to people in my constituency. Could the minister tell this House what she and her ministry are doing to make sure this happens to others across the province of Ontario?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd like to thank my honourable colleague for the question. It's always gratifying and I think very encouraging for people to hear about individuals or families who through dint of hard work and use of supports manage to get their family off the welfare system and into paid employment.

I think the column quite rightly points out the very valuable role, in doing that, that job supports like counselling and child care can make in terms of making that happen. That's one of the reasons why our work-for-welfare program, Ontario Works, has job supports like counselling, has child care support, has those other kinds of training things that are very necessary and very important for those families trying to get off welfare.

Mr Baird: Could the minister provide any early indications, with the whole host of welfare reforms that the government has undertaken, that this approach that she and the ministry are taking with Ontario Works will be effective in the province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the members opposite will know, we have had over 200,000 fewer people trapped on welfare in the last year in the province. The vast majority of them have been going into paid employment, have been leaving welfare for employment-related reasons, according to the independent research that we did.

We're also hearing some very encouraging stories from the municipalities that are involved in workfare. As a matter of fact, I did an interview the other day with a reporter who had been interviewing people who are participating in workfare who were very pleased with the service they were getting and quite optimistic about their prospects.

Finally, I think it's worth noting that Shirley Hoy, in a report to the Metro human services committee, recently talked about a report that the US General Accounting Office had done which said that the most successful welfare-to-work programs offered participants an expanded mix of education, training, employment services and increased child care assistance while mandating some form of client participation.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm going to address my question to the Minister of Community and Social Services because I think it fits within her purview. I know she'll pass it to somebody else if it doesn't.

Lucy Blais of the National Council of Welfare was talking about a report that was released today by the National Council of Welfare on video lottery terminals, those one-armed bandits or electronic slot machines that you want to put in every bar, in every restaurant, on every street in every neighbourhood in Ontario. Ms Blais of the National Council of Welfare has stated that it is their opinion after much study that any video lottery terminals, electronic slot machines, should be placed only in controlled gambling places such as casinos; in other words, where there's a controlled gambling place in existence.

Do you agree with her? If you do, will you inform the Premier so that you're not putting them in every bar and every restaurant in every neighbourhood in Ontario?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think those are very valid points and I'm sure my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations would like to answer them.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Thanks for the opportunity to answer the question. As everyone knows right now, Ontario will be introducing video lottery terminals. They'll be the lowest per capita number of machines in the country. We will be the ninth province in the country to be entering into this initiative.

I'd like to point out what the province of Ontario is doing. We're going to be dedicating about $9 million to dealing with problem gambling for education, for prevention and for a number of other initiatives. I might point out that in prior governments, when the casinos were introduced by the NDP government, they did allocate $1 million to go to problem gambling, but when the Liberal government introduced roving casinos and Monte Carlos, they allocated no money.

Mr Bradley: To the minister, the reason, of course, that you are having to increase this is you're increasing the problem a thousandfold. In Manitoba, 92% of addicted gamblers seeking help from the Manitoba Addiction Research Foundation said that VLTs, video lottery terminals or electronic slot machines, were the problem for their addiction.

Minister, recognizing that this preys upon the most vulnerable people in our society, the most desperate, the most addicted, because it's the most alluring and seducing kind of gambling, will you now come to your senses and will you give a commitment to this House that you will not allow electronic slot machines, VLTs, into bars and restaurants and neighbourhoods in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I might point out to the honourable member is that the Addiction Research Foundation report that was issued last fall indicated that in Ontario approximately 1% to 2% of the population would have gambling problems.

I might indicate as well that Dr Room, the vice-president of the Addiction Research Foundation, said that the 2% of the gross revenues that the province will be allocating to problem gambling will certainly mean that the government could build some treatment centres for people with gambling addictions. They indicated clearly that this is money that could deal with people who need the facilities now, but they certainly say there is some light at the end of the tunnel because of our allocation of around $9 million each year.

COMMUNITY WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Attorney General and it concerns the victim/witness program. Lately you've been making announcements of some new programs being set up, and we know that when we introduced the surcharge to fund those programs Sault Ste Marie was on the top of that list to get a program. When can Sault Ste Marie expect to get a victim/witness program for its community.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Certainly we are looking at expanding this program to as many centres as we possibly can, and as funds become available those expansions will be entered into. The member is quite right. This is a very important program; it's a program that assists witnesses going through a court process that's very difficult for them. We want to ensure that the program can be in as many centres across the province as we possibly can manage, and we will be looking at continuously expanding this program as funds become available.

Mr Martin: That's interesting, Minister. My supplementary is around the criteria you will use to make those decisions. You will know that Sault Ste Marie has had a number of very high-profile and complicated cases lately, over the last few years, and yet just recently you announced a program for North Bay. We know that this government is very anxious to assist the Premier's own jurisdiction, given that they're going to lose 22,000 jobs in that area. You have already, as a government, moved offices in education, agriculture, OPP and fire over there. Are you going to base the decision around where the next victim/witness program is located on need as opposed to political expedience?

Hon Mr Harnick: The decisions about expansion of this program have been made by people in the Ministry of the Attorney General who are quite aware of the demand for the program. On that basis, they've determined where the program should be.

I might tell you that we've doubled the size of the program from 13 to 26 centres, something that should have been done a long time ago and could have been done a long time ago if the resolve to do it had been there.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I have had many town hall meetings in my riding of Durham East on the subject of education. Parents want their children to have training and education that will allow them to be competitive in the world today. However, international tests have recently shown that our students' results are below the best in the world. In fact, recent results rank Ontario students last within Canada and only achieving the international average.

Minister, we're paying the most for education. Could you tell me what action you're taking to ensure that our students have the best, affordable, highest-quality education?

Interjections.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Durham East for the question and also for the concern about the achievement of our students here in Ontario. I know that the member for Durham East, as do all my other colleagues -- unlike the members opposite, apparently, from their comments a few moments ago -- measures the success of our school system and the results of our students not in the amount of money spent. Surely we are number one in spending. Unfortunately, we're not number one in student achievement.

Our government has addressed how we can have the excellent teachers and the excellent students we have in Ontario achieve better. We believe that a big part of the answer is to have rigorous and demanding curriculum that focuses our resources, focuses our teachers and our students on the basics, on reading and writing, spelling and grammar, math, science, geography and Canadian history. And we must have, we absolutely must have, very clear standards that are measurable in every single grade.

Mr O'Toole: I support fully the idea of having measurable outcomes. How will parents know what these standards are supposed to be? How are they supposed to know what they're achieving and how will they hold the educational system itself accountable for achieving these standards?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Our ministry has recently, in our pledge to parents, given an outline of the kind of exact standards we would like to have students achieve right across the province, including that after grade 6 every child in the province should be able to use simple, compound and complex sentences to organize a paragraph, and as an example of the requirements after grade 9, every student should be able to plot a graph that represents y = 2 x + 1. Those are the kinds of standards we believe parents should know about.

In addition, we will have standard province-wide tests for students in the province and we will have very clear report cards for students and for their parents. In addition to that -- and I'm very proud of this -- we will also ask parents and taxpayers to rate the Ministry of Education and give the Ministry of Education a report card every year. That's a first step towards accountability in our system.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I think the minister knows that we are not the biggest spenders in Canada on a per pupil basis. We're probably about sixth, and after next year we'll probably be 10th, as we are with colleges and universities.

I'd like to point out -- and I'm sure you will be aware of this -- that the number one concern in Ontario is jobs. Over the last 18 months we have heard little from you regarding training needs for Ontarians.

We now hear that the province is considering a proposal to hand over apprenticeship training to the college system. Minister, what consultations have you had with the stakeholders in the training in the apprenticeship area?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for the question. Just to help him out with the

preamble, it depends, in how much Ontario spends relative to other provinces, whether you include all the costs or not. I'd invite the member opposite to join us in a brief on that some day, if he'd like to get the full facts.

As far as jobs are concerned, my colleagues have announced on several occasions our proud record in job creation in this province. That's something I'm proud of as part of this government. Second, I was pleased to stand in this House last year and announce an increase in the number of jobs for students in the province, I think another proud piece of our record as a government.

As far as apprenticeship is concerned, this is something very near and dear to my heart personally. I know a lot about the apprenticeship programs in the province; I've had direct contact with apprentices, and I can assure the member opposite that before we do reforms to apprenticeship which are necessary and needed in this province, we will do broad-based consultations.

Mr Patten: The industry at the moment conducts about 40% of all the training in Ontario in apprenticeship training, yet there have been no discussions with the industry or the training institutes or anyone involved in the training field among the trades and the industries. Will you assure the House that when you proceed to change the apprenticeship training program, you will consult all trades, all industries affected in Ontario in terms of the delivery training services needed? They are the bodies that know best what kinds of training needs to take place within the industries.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to report to the member opposite that no one needs to inform me of the importance of that skill development in the province, the importance to our future, and also the situation our apprentices find themselves in. I of course have some personal knowledge in that area. When we do the necessary reforms to the apprenticeship program in Ontario we will consult broadly with apprentices, with the industries, with the employers, and see what exactly is needed and how the province can support the development of those necessary skills.

I know the member opposite and his colleagues join us in being very happy that in fact -- unfortunately, in Canada youth employment has gone down, but over the last year in Ontario youth employment has gone up.

R.L. HEARN GENERATING STATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Ontario Hydro is selling off part of the R.L. Hearn generating plant, which is located in my riding. Ontario Hydro refuses to tell us who is buying it and for what purpose. Minister, I would like you to tell us today, first of all, did this site go up for tender before it's sold off, and if not, why not?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I believe Ontario Hydro is trying to improve its financial situation. This particular site is surplus to their needs and therefore they have put it up for sale. You'll have to refer to the chairman of Hydro with regard to the details of it. I'll take it on notice and come back to you with an answer on the specific details that are public.

Ms Churley: I'd say to the minister that residents in my community are very concerned, for good reason. They're concerned about the possibility of hospital waste being burned there. They're concerned about solid waste incineration down the road. They cannot get any answers from Ontario Hydro. You are accountable, and I want you to tell me whether or not this went out to tender. We would like, at the very least, to have information as to who the interested party is. Why can't the community get that very basic information?

Hon Mr Sterling: There have been no indications with regard to what the use of the Hearn generation station might be in the future. They would of course have to follow any environmental rules, they would have to follow any zoning bylaws of the city, they would have to follow all of the other rules with regard to the future use. Your citizens should be as protected as they would with regard to any other private property that people would be selling in the province of Ontario.

As I said before, I would be most pleased to take this on notice and try to fill the member in on additional details as I can receive them from Ontario Hydro on this matter.

BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES ADMINISTRATIONS LOCALES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 86,

An Act to provide for better local government by updating and streamlining the Municipal Elections Act, the Municipal Act and related statutes / Projet de loi 86, Loi prévoyant l'amélioration des administrations locales en modernisant et simplifiant la

Loi sur les élections municipales, la

Loi sur les municipalités et d'autres lois connexes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Question period is over. There will be a deferred vote; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1502 to 1507.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Shea has moved third reading of Bill 86. All those in favour of the motion will rise one at a time.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Galt, Doug

Patten, Richard

Arnott, Ted

Gerretsen, John

Phillips, Gerry

Baird, John R.

Gilchrist, Steve

Preston, Peter

Barrett, Toby

Grandmaître, Bernard

Pupatello, Sandra

Bartolucci, Rick

Gravelle, Michael

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Bassett, Isabel

Grimmett, Bill

Ross, Lillian

Beaubien, Marcel

Guzzo, Garry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Bradley, James J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Ruprecht, Tony

Brown, Jim

Harnick, Charles

Sampson, Rob

Brown, Michael A.

Hastings, John

Saunderson, William

Caplan, Elinor

Hoy, Pat

Sergio, Mario

Carr, Gary

Jackson, Cameron

Shea, Derwyn

Chudleigh, Ted

Johnson, Bert

Sheehan, Frank

Clement, Tony

Johnson, David

Smith, Bruce

Crozier, Bruce

Jordan, W. Leo

Snobelen, John

Cunningham, Dianne

Kells, Morley

Spina, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Kennedy, Gerard

Sterling, Norman W.

Danford, Harry

Klees, Frank

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

Kwinter, Monte

Tascona, Joseph N.

Doyle, Ed

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tilson, David

Duncan, Dwight

Maves, Bart

Tsubouchi, David H.

Ecker, Janet

McGuinty, Dalton

Turnbull, David

Elliott, Brenda

Munro, Julia

Vankoughnet, Bill

Eves, Ernie L.

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Flaherty, Jim

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Ford, Douglas B.

North, Peter

Witmer, Elizabeth

Fox, Gary

O'Toole, John

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

Palladini, Al

Young, Terence H.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will rise one at a time.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Cooke, David S.

Pouliot, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Christopherson, David

Marchese, Rosario

Wildman, Bud

Churley, Marilyn

Martin, Tony

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 84; the nays are 12.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to bring to your attention, and also to the attention of new Minister of Health who is here in this House, that order paper questions, to which commitment had been made would be answered by December 12, have not yet been answered.

They are order paper questions number 662 through 669. I had been told that all of those would be answered either December 6 or December 12. I point out to the minister that today is the 16th. It's important that these be answered and I ask that he undertake to get these answered as quickly as possible.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Your point has been made, and I hope that the minister will take note.

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is in response to Bill 84. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the firefighters of Sudbury and Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Solicitor General to rewrite Bill 84 before being enacted into law and only after extensive public hearings across Ontario."

I affix my name to this petition as I agree with it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions from firefighters at Station 111 in Mississauga, CAW Local 4580 in Brantford, Stratford and District Labour Council, OPSEU Local 365 at Trent University and IAMLL 863 in Burlington.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illness and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers;

"And further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I add my name to theirs.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition.

"We, the concerned citizens and taxpayers of rural Lambton county, object to the notice of intention to issue directions to Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital by the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

"By depriving us of a full-service hospital and taking away all of our acute care beds, this places our lives at risk and denies us the same opportunities for health care as other citizens within the county. Our hospital must continue to provide rural primary care, including acute services and 24-hour emergency care to our taxpayers and voters. We must maintain essential services in our community."

I'll sign my signature to the petition.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Windsor and Essex county, Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the following:

"Whereas children are our most important resource and are Ontario's future;

"Whereas the Ontario Child Health Study (1988) indicated that at any given time, 18% of children and adolescents require mental health services;

"Whereas recent research studies have proven the positive results and cost-effectiveness of mental health treatment for children and adolescents;

"Whereas the 95 children's mental health centres in Ontario serve over 85,000 children and their families each year by providing quality programs to address urgent and serious problems; and

"Whereas the cost of providing treatment to children in the 95 centres across the province is less than the cost of running one large urban teaching hospital or school board;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislative Assembly to continue to invest significant resources in children's mental health programs. Our future depends on it. Give children's mental health centres a mandate to continue their work with children and families through appropriate legislation."

I'm pleased to affix my signature along with the hundreds of others from people in my community.

EDUCATION FINANCING

"Stop the cuts to education. This petition protests the nearly $1 billion the government plans to cut from Ontario school budgets by November 1996. We call upon Premier Mike Harris and Education Minister John Snobelen to guarantee adequate funding for our schools so that our kids get the benefit of a quality education."

I affix my signature to the petition.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): On behalf of many of the residents in Hastings-Peterborough:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we believe that provincial interest in public libraries in Ontario is fundamental to the rights of all Ontarians,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the provincial interest in public libraries by ensuring the continuance of the following:

"Grants to ensure that all Ontarians have equalized access to library materials and services; coordination of resource-sharing programs such as interlibrary loan and Internet access; policy to ensure the future of the network of Ontario public libraries; provincial assistance directly to libraries at the service level, for example, through Southern Ontario Library Service and Ontario Library Service North; legislation that maintains the autonomy of public library boards."

I affix my signature.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of people from St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"To the government of Ontario:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services;

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study;

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I'm in complete agreement with it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we are opposed to the opening of retail establishments on Boxing Day, December 26, 1996, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To reconsider any changes to the laws that now cover the closure of retail establishments on Boxing Day."

There are many pages, with 25 signatures each, and I'm affixing my signature.

USER FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep getting petitions against the $2 user fee levied against our senior citizens in this province. The petition reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge seniors and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user fee copayment or from other non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 user fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee or the painstaking task involved to fill out application forms; and

"Whereas the current Ontario Minister of Health" -- at that point it was Jim Wilson, because that's what the petition says -- "promised as an opposition MPP in a July 5, 1993, letter to Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal this user fee plan, because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, is not sensitive, nor is it accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors; and lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I have signed my name to this petition.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by approximately 150 residents of Blind River, Spanish and Elliot Lake, including all of the students of the North Shore Board of Education's adult education centre, regarding the cuts to adult education. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas lifelong learning is essential, not an option, for present and future success in this information age;

"Whereas this government has severely cut its secondary school funding for the education of its citizens who are 21 years of age and older;

"We ask that this age discrimination be stopped. We ask for equal access to education for all citizens of this province, as it was before this government came to power. We request restoration of full funding for all students at the secondary school level based on their need of further knowledge and skills, not on their age."

I add my signature to the petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition, and thousands are coming in, with regard to the rent control situation here.

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster eviction by landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

I affix my signature to these petitions.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from CUPE, Local 5, in my home town of Hamilton:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I continue to support these petitions.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we believe that provincial interest in public libraries in Ontario is fundamental to the rights of all Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the provincial interest in public libraries by ensuring the continuance of the following:

"(1) grants to ensure that all Ontarians have equalized access to library materials and services;

"(2) coordination of resource-sharing programs such as interlibrary loan and Internet access;

"(3) policy to ensure the future of the network of Ontario public libraries;

"(4) provincial assistance directly to libraries at the service level, for example, through Southern Ontario Library Service and Ontario Library Service North; and

"(5) legislation that maintains the autonomy of public library boards."

PROTECTION OF TEMAGAMI

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition from over 550 high school students. The petition is to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the 1,400-hectare ancient forest landscape, known as the Owain Lake region of Temagami, contains the third-largest known remaining old-growth red and white pine ecosystem in eastern North America; and

"Whereas this type of ecological representation is indigenous to and currently lacking in the Temagami site district; and

"Whereas old-growth white pine exists in less than 1% of its former geographical range and therefore would be defined as an endangered ecosystem; and

"Whereas we represent young citizens of Ontario and wish to have this region intact for the rest of our lives;

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

"That the Ontario government rescind all permits for logging and mining in the Temagami region and that the remaining old-growth red and white pine in the Owain Lake district be set aside for protection as a wilderness conservation area."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the Windsor regional hospital workers at 1995 Lens Avenue in Windsor.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government has begun a process to open the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario; and

"Whereas this act is the single most important piece of legislation for working people since it is designed to protect our lives, safety and health while at work and allow us to return home to our families in the same condition in which we left; and

"Whereas the government has made it clear they intend to water down the act and weaken the rights of workers under the law, including the right to know, the right to participate and especially the right to refuse; and

"Whereas this government has already watered down proper training of certified committee members;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the legislation."

I add my name to theirs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BOXING DAY SHOPPING ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS LE LENDEMAIN DE NOËL

Mr Carr, on behalf of Mr Runciman, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to permit shopping on Boxing Day by amending the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act / Projet de loi 95, Loi visant à permettre l'ouverture des magasins le lendemain de Noël en modifiant la

Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): This legislation is urgently required to ensure that retailers will be free to open on December 26. Bill 95 removes December 26 from the list of holiday closing dates under the Retail Business Holidays Act and amends the Employment Standards Act to allow opening on Boxing Day. Employees choosing to work on Boxing Day will be paid a premium as of December 26.

Bill 95 also amends provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act concerning commercial leases. This amendment allows retailers to decide whether or not to open on December 26. This legislation will permit Ontarians to conduct business on what is often the biggest shopping day of the year, and police resources can be diverted to the priorities of fighting crime.

Bill 95 will increase available work hours and employment opportunities for Ontario's retail workers. This will especially benefit part-time workers who often seek extra hours during this holiday season.

I had the opportunity, in opposition a few years ago, of dealing with the Sunday shopping bill. I spent a great deal of time going across this province; we spent about four weeks going across northern Ontario in dealing with this bill. It has been my opportunity to spend some time talking to various people across this province on the issues relating to the Retail Business Holidays Act. Bill 95 eliminates inconsistent enforcement of the Retail Business Holidays Act. It responds to consumer demands for increased shopping opportunities and allows all retailers in Ontario to legally conduct business on Boxing Day.

Retailers are anxiously awaiting the passage of this legislation. Nance MacDonald, the general manager of Square One shopping centre in Mississauga -- we either have a spelling error or she spells it that way, and I apologize if it is not -- was quoted in Saturday's Toronto Star as saying: "Everyone is geared up and ready to go.... I wouldn't be surprised if most retailers open on Boxing Day no matter what." It is clear that we must take action now to ensure a level playing field for all retailers and end the confusion once and for all on this important shopping day.

I encourage all members of the Legislature to pass this legislation. As we all know, the time is winding down as we go for the Christmas holidays, and it's imperative that this be dealt with prior to Boxing Day.

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

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): It's unlikely that I'll have an opportunity to participate fully in this debate, so I'm going to take two minutes to comment on the opening remarks from the government.

One of the concerns I've had is that we have seen many merchants in this province opening illegally on Boxing Day, and we know how stressed policing resources are and how difficult it has been to enforce that ban. I've always said it's not a good idea to encourage law-breaking. Society must support the laws of the land, or we are all guilty of creating a kind of society where lawlessness and law-breakers are accepted. I think that's wrong. I happen to believe that if you have a law it should be respected.

In bringing forward this law, while some people have real concerns about the impact of allowing wide-open shopping on Boxing Day, my own view is that we should not be using our policing resources to try and crack down on a law that clearly nobody respects. While I have enormous respect for the law and I believe society should respect the law, because we have seen over the course of time a desire by many in our society to have the traditional Boxing Day sales, I am willing to accept the government's legislation that will change the law and permit Boxing Day shopping and Boxing Day sales.

I wanted to get that on the record. I wanted to be very clear. I understand and share the concerns of those who don't like it, but I believe in respect for the law and I hope that this will be a positive change in Ontario.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In the two minutes I have to respond I want to tell the parliamentary assistant that in our community there is some support by mall owners. Mall owners are in favour of this legislation. They think it's good stuff. I can tell you that Mr Braganolo, the manager of Timmins Square, and the other manager at the 101 Mall are in favour of opening on Boxing Day, but the owners of businesses in the downtown area of Timmins, the owners of businesses at Timmins Square and other employers are actually opposed to this.

The dilemma we find ourselves in is that it doesn't matter if this legislation is passed or not passed, businesses will open come Boxing Day, as the law we have now on the books is not going to stand up in the courts. It's a bit of a funny situation we find ourselves in: We're rushing to pass legislation that in any event, whether it passes or doesn't pass, it doesn't make a lot of difference because in the end the stores are going to be open on Boxing Day one way or another.

I just want to make sure that the government knows that not every business owner in this province is in support of this legislation. I can tell you, when I went to Timmins Square, both last Saturday and the Saturday before, went through the square and went through the downtown, the one issue --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You're doing a lot of Christmas shopping, aren't you?

Mr Bisson: I didn't get a lot of Christmas shopping done, because the store owners and the store managers and the workers were constantly coming out of their stores to talk to me about this legislation. They felt it was enough that they remained open all the other days in the year and that to be open Boxing Day didn't make a lot of sense for them, but they were worried that the legislation might mean, if it was passed, that they would have to open.

I pointed out to them that under

section 6 of the law, in effect the owner of the retail business has the right to choose not to. But I would imagine that in the end, the big companies such as Laing, the people who run Timmins Square, and Mr Braganolo will have their day and it will be, unfortunately, another example where the big do well and the little guy gets it in the ear once again.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'd like to reply briefly to the member for Oakville South's brief presentation this afternoon. He serves, of course, as the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General and does an outstanding job in that capacity as well as representing his constituents. I sit beside him and I can tell him this privately, but I want to inform the whole House of how I truly feel at this late hour, this late hour in the afternoon close to Christmas.

Certainly this bill is something that many retailers, especially the larger retailers, have been looking for for quite some time. Of course we've seen what happens on Boxing Day on Yonge Street whereby many of the businesses are opening illegally. This is something, I suppose, in response to a reality that, unfortunately perhaps, is happening in our society today.

I recall when we discussed Sunday shopping some time ago, my colleague Mr Carr and I actually disagreed. I felt at the time that Sunday shopping was not in our best interests and that we should try to discourage wide-open Sunday shopping. At that time, that was not the view of the majority in the House, so the bill passed and now we have wide-open Sunday shopping. That still to some extent saddens me, but it's a reality I recognize.

Again, I would like to commend the member for Oakville South for his fine presentation this afternoon and look forward to his concluding comments.

Mr Gerretsen: I too wanted to make a couple of very brief comments on this bill. Let me first of all say that I think it's too bad in our society that we have to pass a bill like this to basically legitimize a situation which, as has already been indicated, is difficult to enforce nowadays. I certainly concur with the notion that our police should be involved in fighting crime in the cities and municipalities of Ontario rather than fighting merchants who want to stay open on a particular day.

The sad part about it, however, is the fact that people spend anywhere from two weeks to two months getting ready for Christmas and doing all their shopping, getting the tree decorated, getting everything else done, and what does it basically boil down to? We've come to a point in our society where we're talking about 24 hours when there's actually peace in the sense that all the stores aren't open etc, and we have to pass a law now that will legitimize the situation so that people can stay open on Boxing Day as well.

I suppose in a perfect world you would try to get concurrence from all the different shop owners, large or small, throughout this province whereby they would all agree to stay closed for a couple of days; that way, nobody could suggest that while they're closed and somebody else is open, the other store owner is making the money and somebody being left out.

It's too bad that our Christmas season in effect has come down to only one day of rest, namely, Christmas Day. I will be reluctantly voting in favour of this as well because I do believe our police should be involved in fighting crime rather than whether a provincial bylaw of this nature has been violated.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Are you going to give us your views on the megacity now?

Mr Gerretsen: No, we'll give you the views on the megacity sometime later on.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakville South, you have two minutes.

Mr Carr: I'm pleased to wrap up. I appreciate the comments from the member for Oriole and her participation, as well as the member for Cochrane South, my good friend the member for Wellington, and the member for Kingston and The Islands.

I know on these issues there is often difference of opinion between all members of the House, of all parties, on what should be done and there's often some compromise made in what people believe should be done. I think this particular issue is something probably even more non-partisan -- there are probably some members of our caucus who disagree with certain aspects.

My friend from Wellington alluded to some of the discussions we had in the past. I know that as I went around the province on the Sunday shopping legislation there was a great deal of difference of opinion. The former parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the member for Durham East, Gord Mills -- I can call him by his name, I guess, now. We got to know each other and there was a tremendous amount of difference of opinion even within their caucus. But I appreciate that all the members have attempted to try to make their views known.

I honestly and truly believe that this piece of legislation has come forward in this time, in this place, in this day. We all remember what has happened over the last little while. The big debate is going to be whether the police are going to be out and charge the retailers on Boxing Day. I think we've grown past that as a society.

To all members who participated, I want to thank you for your efforts. Hopefully, by some of the indication here today, I believe the bill will probably pass. It will end a lot of the confusion. Regardless of what we do, we need to end the confusion for our police services across the province, which up until this point have been very confused about what to do. I'm pleased that we will have some agreement, and hopefully this bill will pass today so that we can end confusion. Again, I thank the members for Oriole, Cochrane South, Wellington and Kingston and The Islands for their participation. Good luck to all of us.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): When I begin, I would like to get the unanimous consent of the House -- this is difficult; the table will assist me with this, I'm sure -- to split the remainder of time to be spent on this bill between the Liberal Party and the NDP, which would be, if you wanted to say it, the three hours. It won't be three hours -- quite obviously, it's not going to be anywhere near that -- but it's just so that the Liberals can have their speakers in one block and the NDP their speakers in one block. I don't anticipate that they will be lengthy.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Just ask for unanimous consent to split your leadoff time among multiple speakers.

Mr Bradley: They say I should ask for unanimous consent to split the leadoff time between myself and Mr Curling and Mr Gerretsen.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

Mr Bradley: I'm the person who gets to speak against this first of all. Because I'm the House leader, I get to speak first out of the three people.

This is almost like a private members' hour this afternoon because I'm sure, as the member for Oakville South has said, there are many opinions on this particular piece of legislation. Some would engage in crackpot realism, my favourite saying now; that is, they are prepared to accept something because everybody says that that's the way it is today in 1996. I don't engage in that. I like to argue on the merits. Just because people are breaking the law, I don't accept the fact personally, and I speak only personally on this, that therefore we should always change the law.

It reminds me of video lottery terminals. I happen to believe that in this case the government made a case, if I might draw an analogy, for video lottery terminals by saying that there were some illegal video lottery terminals or electronic slot machines out there. What I said was that that's similar to saying that since there are a lot of banks being robbed, the government should get into the bank-robbing business. That wouldn't make any sense. Or that since people are selling crack cocaine, somehow the government should get into that business. I don't accept that.

I personally am opposed to opening stores on Boxing Day and will in the next few minutes list some of the reasons why I believe this is ill-advised legislation, even though with a government majority it will go through and I'm sure there are even people on this side of the House who would take a different view than I do.

First of all, you have to look at those who are most vulnerable, and those are the people who must work in these stores. I know that as part of this bill there is legislation providing that those who do not wish to work will be protected. That just isn't going to work in a practical sense. It is easier perhaps in the very large stores, the ones, by the way, which are most eager to be open, the Wal-Marts of this world and other very large stores, than it is in medium-sized or smaller stores, where you might have five or six or seven employees. If none of the people want to work on Boxing Day when they're asked, you can be sure that some of those people are going to have to work.

I think you've also made provision in this legislation, if my memory is correct, to pay time and a half for people who will work that day, or some premium at least for people who work that day, and that alleviates a bit of the concern.

But I think what is of most concern to workers is that this is one chance they get to be with family. Very often the only time we get to see some of our relatives is at Christmastime or at funerals or weddings. For a lot of people the family does gather together at a household or two during the Christmas period of time. Where there's a younger man and wife, they may want to go to one set of grandparents for one Christmas dinner, if I can call it that, and to another set of grandparents for a second Christmas dinner. So one of those happens to be on Boxing Day and one of those on Christmas Day.

This does not permit that to happen if people are owner-operators of stores or if they are workers in the stores.

First of all, I believe we are depriving people who work in the retail stores of this province an opportunity to be home with their families and friends for two days in a row. That doesn't exist other times, if you think of it, because the stores are now open seven days a week normally. I'm not saying everybody who works in the retail sector works the full seven days a week, but the stores are open seven days a week and those who are part-time workers might well be in the position of having to work seven days a week.

This becomes even more important now that we have, in my view unwisely, opened the major retail outlets on Sundays. That means these people have very few holidays, and this is one time to get together.

Second are the owners. It is contended that everybody in the retail business is eager to be out there and open. That's not the case. Some are, and I will concede some are, but many are not. Often you'll get a number of stores in a mall or in a shopping centre where the people are family owners or small owners. They would prefer to be closed on Boxing Day, but if you're going to open up Boxing Day to others, they are going to have to open up because of competition or because it is a rule of the mall or a rule of the shopping centre.

Again, I know the government has placed a provision in this legislation which says that despite the lease, a person may stay closed. Well, just as the person who won't work on Boxing Day may not curry much favour with the employer, those stores which choose to close on Boxing Day may not curry much favour with the owner of the shopping centre who wants all stores open. When it comes up to lease time, that may be one of the factors considered in the renewal of the lease. I'm not saying it necessarily is going to result in a person not being able to stay in that mall or shopping centre, but that is a possibility that arises as a result of this legislation.

Someone just made a point around the circle -- I think it was the member for Kingston and The Islands, or perhaps someone else. One of the members stated, "Well, don't you understand that all the stores are open before Christmas?" In fact, they are. They're open often until 9 and 10 o'clock at night -- seven days a week they're open in this case -- and at least five of those seven days, and perhaps six of those seven days, the stores are open a very long period of time, including the Liquor Control Board of Ontario stores, which are open as well.

By opening it up on this day, you are compelling owners of stores as well as employees of stores to work on a day they do not wish to work. I just don't think it's necessary to feed this mania for shopping till you drop on Boxing Day. The same goods are going to be available the day after Boxing Day if you want to go shopping, and they may be available the next weekend, except, as some of the members opposite say, some of the half-priced stuff. I assure you that there's some half-priced stuff over there available now, and there will be for some period of time after the Christmas break.

So I don't think it's necessary. There will be people who say: "You're simply not living in 1996. This might have been realistic 10 or 20 years ago." Well, I think there are certain values that shouldn't disappear just because the calendar changes.

I would prefer as well not to be discussing this piece of legislation this afternoon, but rather to be discussing the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, because we've had an announcement from our local restructuring commission that while we are opening stores on Boxing Day, we are closing hospitals for seven days a week, 365 days a year, if the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines is closed as a result of a recommendation of a local restructuring committee which is predicating its recommendation on the fact that the government is going to provide about $40 million less in operating funds to local hospitals.

That's what I would prefer to be talking about, or I'd prefer to be talking about, in the retail sector, the non-privatization of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which I think should stay as it is in government hands. It's modernized and it is up to date. I'm not saying it should be open Boxing Day either. I would prefer it and other retail stores to be closed on Boxing Day.

I look at this issue and say it is not a priority issue. There are some people who are putting pressure on the government, some people who are breaking laws, so the government says, "If they're breaking the laws, we're going to take the police off that and put them on something else." I know it has taken some police officers away from giving tickets to cars parked illegally, and that is a good revenue producer, and I know there may be the odd person who is exceeding the speed limit who will now perhaps be called to account by police officers -- again, an ability to collect some funds as well for the government.

But I happen to think this legislation is not necessary. I look across at the people who sit on the government benches. If you look through some of their campaign literature, they ran on a family values platform. If we want to talk about family values, we want families to be able to gather together for at least one period of the year, getting together to visit, to reacquaint with one another, if you will, in some cases, because they are long distances away, and simply to enjoy a very special season.

As a result of this legislation, that is not going to happen and when we come to the time to vote for this, I will be using my voice to vote against this by saying nay when the Speaker calls for ayes