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

June 10, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L202 - Tue 10 Jun 1997 / Mar 10 Jun 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

NORTHERN TRAIN SERVICE

DAIRY FARMERS

LEGISLATIVE CHANNEL

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

WINDERMERE HOUSE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

VISITORS

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

WATER QUALITY

JOB CREATION

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

CARIBANA

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

SAULT COLLEGE

TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

PETITIONS

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

COURT DECISION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

BEAR HUNTING

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

TUITION FEES

MANDATORY INQUESTS

ABORTION

TVONTARIO

ABORTION

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

TVONTARIO

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES FINANCIERS DE L'ONTARIO

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

OPPOSITION DAY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today I would like to inform the House and the people of Ontario about another Tory ripoff. This time the ripoff is on teachers because now they have to pay a $90 annual fee to the College of Teachers: a College of Teachers, by the way, that they don't control, a College of Teachers, by the way, that they don't want.

But what makes this even worse is that this $90 fee is being charged to those people who will benefit the least from the College of Teachers. I want to speak about retiring teachers, for they too last week were charged the $90, even though they will receive no benefit from the College of Teachers. Occasional teachers, part-time teachers, what we used to call "supply teachers" are being charged the $90, even though most of them haven't received one day's work over the course of the last year. They also have to pay the $90. A ripoff? I think so.

But the most vulnerable group of teachers are the new teachers, the teachers without jobs, the teachers graduating from colleges of education. Those people have to pay the $90 as well. Already mired in debt because of increased tuition fees because of this government, they too have to pay the new $90 tax.

NORTHERN TRAIN SERVICE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Last week in this House I rose and asked a question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines about the status of the Ontario Northland Railway, namely, the Northlander train. I've been doing some work over the last week talking to different people across northern Ontario and what is coming back is quite alarming.

It appears at this point that this government is not prepared to give in future months the kind of support financially that is needed to the ONTC to keep that train in place. The government needs to know -- and they've got to understand this clearly -- for many communities along the ONTC right of way, from North Bay all the way up to Cochrane and further on to Moosonee, it is the only way that people have to be able to get out of their communities to do anything from doing business to keeping a doctor's appointment. The ONTC is there to serve a purpose and it seems that this government is forgetting what it's all about.

There is another aspect about all of this that the government also needs to recognize, and that is the tourism industry in northern Ontario in and along the ONTC right of way and going on to Moosonee. If you shut the Northlander down, you will not have anything to feed the Polar Bear Express when it comes to the trip going from Cochrane up to Moosonee. That community relies on the revenue that they're able to generate over the short summer months, to give employment to people within the community of Moosonee.

If this government shuts down the Northlander it's going to mean that the Polar Bear Express, one of the major attractions in northeastern Ontario when it comes to tourism, is going to be put at risk. I am asking this government to put on --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much.

DAIRY FARMERS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The mindless government spending and burdening taxes for the people of Ontario is clearly over. This government has given a VIP invitation to business in this province to create partnerships promoting growth and increasing employment.

When this government stepped back from funding the seventh-inning stretch of Blue Jays games, it opened the gate for dairy farmers of Ontario to pour through. A program which cost the people of Ontario $15,000 in 1995, before being withdrawn, is now giving the dairy farmers of this province an opportunity to be recognized. This program at all the ballparks fits well with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's message, which promotes a healthy lifestyle.

Dairy Farmers of Ontario continue to provide resource material to Ontario teachers and ensure milk is available for all Ontario elementary and high school students. They also participate in promoting penalty-free playing in Ontario amateur hockey. This outlines only a few of the many programs dairy farmers in this province support. As a dairy farmer myself, I feel great pride in the recognition Ontario dairy farmers are getting through these programs.

The milk energy message at Blue Jays games fits well with the concept of the physical activity of the seventh-inning stretch. Last Sunday was designated as Dairy Farmers of Ontario Day at the ballpark. This is just one example of how business can expand, increase employment and support other businesses when government spends dollars wisely and concentrates on governing.

LEGISLATIVE CHANNEL

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): It was with great irony that I received this letter, dated June 1, in light of this current government's attempts to change the rules of the House to prevent appropriate debate on issues.

"Dear Mrs Pupatello,

"In 1986 when we received our cable, my father would watch the federal and Queen's Park channels before he went to work or after he got home, depending on what shift he was on at Ford. In 1992, I quit school to help my mother take care of him after he fell at work. Somewhere in 1993, I started to watch also. Other families have football or baseball to watch; we had this. Every day we would watch from 1:30 to 3 for question period or, as he called it, the comedy hour. We would watch as the members would yell things and get thrown out and he would yell things at the TV like, "Order" or "Quorum."

"This past March 9 he passed away. His name was Robert L. Wood. I am writing to ask you to give my thanks to the past and current members for hours and hours of excitement and chaos for us to watch. Also, give thanks to the current Speaker, because he was his favourite member.

"I also thank you for the above and for taking the time to read this letter. Once again, thank you.

"James Wood,

"Windsor, Ontario

"PS This was the only way I could think of to honour his memory, because I didn't have the heart to go see him one last time at IODE hospital."

I think it's indeed ironic to have received this today. We hope the government won't change the rules of the House.

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to recognize June 10 as Portugal Day, a day where we're able to join together and celebrate the history, culture and vibrancy of Portugal and its people.

My riding of Fort York is home to a large and vibrant Portuguese-Canadian community. There are currently more than 500,000 people of Portuguese origin living in Canada; 72% live in Ontario, the sixth-largest ethnic community in this province. The future of this community is its youth, with more than 40,000 Portuguese Canadian young people under the age of 24.

I would like to tell you about an event which was held in my riding over the weekend of May 23-25 at Harbord Collegiate. It was the Portuguese Canadian National Youth Conference sponsored by the Portuguese Canadian National Congress, entitled It's Time to Inherit the Future. It was the most dynamic and exciting exchange of ideas, as youth, parents and community members discussed the issues facing young people today. This conference is a prime example of the rich culture that is being created as Portuguese and Canadian legacies become intertwined.

My sincerest congratulations go to the conference director Helen Filipe; the conference coordinator, João Rolo; and the entire coordinating committee for a truly exemplary effort.

Together we must all work to foster, strengthen and encourage these young people so they may follow the dreams of their ancestors. I would like to thank the Portuguese Canadian community for its many contributions to our society and hope the voices for these young people continue as they inherit the future.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It is my privilege to rise today to speak on the occasion of the celebrations of Portugal Day. I'd like to remind the House that I rise today not only as the member for Mississauga East but also as a member who today speaks on behalf of over half a million people of Portuguese heritage living in Ontario, people who have made their homes and live in the ridings represented by each and every member of this House. Statistics Canada ranks Portuguese as the fourth most predominant non-official language spoken in Canada.

This year the community is celebrating another successful year. Its political and economic strength has been recognized by the Prime Minister of Canada who, a few days prior to the election call, took significant measures to strengthen economic and trade ties between Canada and Portugal, thereby increasing tourism.

This year Canadians of Portuguese heritage are also celebrating their commitment to Canada. While others may be contemplating a way out of Canada, this community feels blessed for being part of this great country.

Please join me in welcoming all the guests in the gallery. Vive le Canada uni et libre ; vive le Portugal.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): My statement is directed to the Minister of Labour. The latest Ontario-Quebec agreement on construction labour mobility is not working out. When the agreement was signed, I said: "Let's give the agreement a chance. Let's wait and see."

We waited, and now we have the results. Last week in Montreal a construction work site was completely shut down by Quebec workers because of the 50 workers, four were from Ontario.

It is also apparent that this agreement does nothing for Ontario workers when you visit the Perley Bridge construction site in Hawkesbury. On this bridge that will link Ontario and Quebec, there are Quebec workers working on both sides of the border, but you can't find an Ontarian on either side. Actually, the only place where you will find Ontario workers is on the unemployment line. The Manpower office in Hawkesbury has a list of more than 1,500 workers who signed up to work on this major construction site but are sitting at home.

Minister, it is obvious that the new agreement is a failure. Ontario construction workers want to know what you will do to protect their livelihood against such discrimination.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is on the hospital cutbacks and health care cuts. This government is adding to the welfare roll several more people, and the cost of providing social programs to assist the laid-off people will far exceed any savings realized by the cuts to the James Bay General Hospital, which has been hit again by this government.

As it is right now, the communities on the coast of James Bay are so underserviced that even a 4% cut, as recommended by your government, will have far-reaching and devastating effects on the delivery of health services to the coast.

The last round of cuts affected once more the support staff who are aboriginal people. These communities are already burdened with high unemployment rates. Their welfare rolls are full and the cost saving anticipated by the cuts will only be borne by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This government has to realize that it is not possible for the people affected by the cuts in this remote area to find other employment as it would be in a larger, more economically dynamic community.

The first nations are more than willing to cooperate to find a way to deliver an effective and efficient health care model on the coast. I urge this government, and specifically the Minister of Health, to visit these communities and see for themselves the current service delivery model and discuss all the options open to a more effective and efficient system, to deliver quality services to communities like Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Kashechewan and all the other communities along the coast.

WINDERMERE HOUSE

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): This past weekend was a special one for my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay and for the province of Ontario.

On February 27, 1996, after 125 seasons, Windermere House, a major Muskoka resort, was destroyed by fire. A wake was held in a local church as the community grieved its loss, but the dream to restore this beautiful tradition never died. Shortly after the fire it was amazing to see a petition circulating through the village of Windermere and beyond. The petition was an open letter of support for the owners as they prepared to rebuild. In just 10 months the resort was rebuilt, with an identical appearance to the original structure, making use of pictures gathered in the surrounding community and the recollections of past owners and tradesmen.

As we celebrated this reopening with a ribbon-cutting and dedication ceremony on Saturday, it was a special pleasure to have the Premier and Mrs Harris there to participate and help promote the reincarnation of this symbol of Ontario's natural beauty. The Premier's presence underscored the great importance our government places on tourism and the need to continue developing our attractions.

This past weekend's events in my riding were a fitting start to this, Tourism Awareness Week, in Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Later today I will be introducing the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997. This bill will merge the Ontario Insurance Commission, the Pension Commission of Ontario and the deposit institutions division of the Ministry of Finance.

We are delivering on a commitment made in last month's budget. It is the latest in a series of steps taken by this government to streamline its own operation, making it more efficient and more accountable.

Our goal in creating this newly integrated commission is to provide more cost-effective and better coordinated regulation of financial services, thereby enabling the industry to better serve consumers and business. By reducing overhead and duplication and by sharing resources and knowledge, we expect to save $3.8 million over the first two fiscal years. The new regulatory structure will provide flexibility to deal with the increasing trend towards integration of financial services.

We have consulted with stakeholders and have received broad acceptance of the proposed agency structure. In response to their concerns about the importance of an independent appeal process, the new commission's tribunal will provide expert, prompt and effective review of regulatory decisions on pension, insurance and other matters. Establishing this commission also lays the groundwork to further streamline regulation, reduce the regulatory burden and eliminate overlap with the federal government.

Ontario is not the first jurisdiction to create an integrated financial services regulator. Similar consolidation has already taken place in Quebec's Inspector General of Financial Institutions, British Columbia's Financial Institutions Commission and the federal government's Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

This bill is one of a number of important steps we are taking to make Ontario's regulation of financial services more efficient. As promised last November, we are also strengthening the Ontario Securities Commission. Last month I introduced budget legislation to make the OSC a self-funding organization. This will ensure that the Ontario Securities Commission has the resources it needs to maintain its position as the leading capital market in Canada and one of the best in the entire world.

We are streamlining licensing requirements for insurance companies and enhancing the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario's ability to regulate insurance brokers and protect consumers. Co-ops that do not issue shares or other securities will no longer have to file annual financial statements, reducing unnecessary paperwork and expense.

Creating the Financial Services Commission is another step towards providing smaller, more efficient and cost-effective government, better regulation of Ontario's financial services, improved consumer protection and maximizing the contribution of financial services to Ontario's economic growth.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I am pleased to rise today with yet another example of how this government has consulted with the people of Ontario, listened to their concerns and then acted to put the needs of seniors first. On behalf of my colleague the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Health, I am announcing that Ontario's seniors will benefit from an extended period of coverage under the Ontario drug benefit program.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to thank the members opposite for their support for this addition.

This means that the benefit year beginning on April 1, 1997, will be extended to July 31, 1998, giving seniors an additional four full months of ODB coverage.

The government recognizes the contributions seniors have made in assisting us to ensure that this province's drug program remains the lowest-cost, most comprehensive plan in all of Canada. That is why today I am announcing that for seniors entering the program for the first time, the deductible they pay will be adjusted to reflect only the number of months for which they are enrolled in the program. Ontario can be proud of the fact that its drug plan is the lowest-cost, quality-assured plan of its kind.

Since June 1995 our government has added 465 new drug products to the ODB Formulary. This is in sharp contrast to the previous government, which chose to delist over 260 products from the formulary. As well, this government has streamlined the approvals process so that the latest and best drugs are added to the plan quickly. These improvements ensure that Ontario drug benefit recipients have access to the drug products they need.

This government has also lowered the deductible for the Trillium drug program. This has made 140,000 additional low-income Ontarians eligible for this benefit. In addition, seniors' groups, including United Senior Citizens of Ontario, met with Finance Minister Ernie Eves in pre-budget consultations on April 8 and urged the government not to increase the ODB copayment, and this government listened.

With today's announcement, we have listened again to concerns recently raised by seniors' groups about fairness in the implementation of the deductible. Today's announcement is in keeping with the changes we have made to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary as it has been phased in. We also made refunds last summer to people incorrectly assigned to higher copayment categories based on federal government information.

To quote Mr Len Harrison, president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, to whom I spoke earlier today, "When you look at the whole package, it's a good result for seniors. This government has listened and it has acted quickly." We will continue to consult seniors and to act decisively to make improvements to our health programs to ensure that at all times Ontario receives the highest-quality services and programs. They deserve nothing less.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'll briefly respond to the Minister of Finance. You can tell by the retreat the government just made with the previous announcement that we'll be looking closely at this legislation. We are supportive of things that legitimately do reduce costs, but we are suspicious of big bureaucracies, and this government seems to like big bureaucracies. The megacity is an example. If this is simply a big bureaucracy we will have some concerns about it.

He's mentioned the Ontario Securities Commission. I think Ontario should recognize that we have before us a bill to establish an independent securities commission but that bill has not had one minute of debate in the Legislature. It has to be passed by July 1 or all of the Ontario trust companies go out of business. It is a strange way to run a government. If we do not pass a bill in three weeks, all the Ontario trust companies are out of business.

The reason I raise that is because you can imagine us in the opposition trying to deal with a government that should be responsible, and yet we find that three weeks from now all of our trust companies will go out of business. We had exactly the same thing on giving the government authority to spend money. Literally hours before they had to write the cheques, they were here in the Legislature looking for authority to spend money when they could have had it months before.

We will be looking forward to the specifics of the legislation. If it meets the rhetoric of the minister's statement, of course we'll be supportive, but until we get into the detail I think Ontario has a right to be suspicious of any legislation this government brings forward.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am delighted to have had the opportunity to listen to the minister today make a complete retreat from what they have done to the seniors in Ontario. This is a day for seniors in Ontario to be proud. This is a day they have shown the government that it was wrong, and the government has admitted today, shamefully, that it was wrong to pick the pockets of seniors in Ontario. We have to agree that this is a day of shame for the government of Ontario.

This is not a time when they consulted with and listened to the seniors. This is a day when they recognized that they had put the seniors at the bottom of the barrel. If it wasn't for the seniors who came to Queen's Park, if it wasn't for us, who told you told constantly that what you're doing is wrong, you wouldn't have done anything.

So when I hear that they listened to the people and they acted, if it wasn't for the seniors, they wouldn't have done anything. This is a time when they have to recognize what the seniors have been saying, and it's not to recognize seniors in such a way. If they had been polite and nice to the seniors of Ontario, they wouldn't have said, "Pay us for 12 months and we'll compensate you for eight and a half months."

This is a win for the seniors of Ontario and I'm delighted that the government had to make a full retreat, knowing full well that it made a mistake, that it wanted to cheat the seniors in Ontario. Today I'm pleased on behalf of the seniors.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is with pleasure that I rise to acknowledge the remarks of the sometime minister for seniors affairs today. Was this a retraction on the part of a heartfelt rethinking by the government? After 71 days of being requested by seniors' organizations, by the members of this House, over and over again, no one -- the minister for seniors issues, the Minister of Health, the Premier -- would act for seniors.

Finally, as things must be, the lesson from this and the retraction, taking away the drug ripoff of seniors -- and each member on the other side of the House sat silent for 71 days until seniors, to add insult to injury, had to organize themselves, bring themselves down to Queen's Park and bring this government to account.

I want to let you know, Minister, that the $170 million you've cut from the drug program is not what seniors are going to sit still for. The seniors aren't going to sit still for the copayment. If you want to add some dignity to your retreat today, you'll agree to meet with seniors and take away the unfair charges you're putting on them for drugs. Congratulations to seniors; nothing due to this government yet.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I am very pleased that this government has gone into full retreat on this issue around the charges for the Ontario drug plan for seniors. This really is, as the opposition has suggested, a victory for those who have been trying to explain to this government how incompetently they have put together this program from the beginning. We all remember the chaos last summer when people were classified in the wrong way and couldn't get through to get reclassified. The minister says proudly today that they have refunded the money to those incorrectly assigned last year.

They have had to jiggle and wiggle around to try and show that they know what they're doing, and the reality is that no one is clear they do. We know that the seniors know what is best for them. The seniors took political action. They came out and this minister has taken this action today to try and forestall what was going to be a very big public relations problem for him and his government around the unfair charging of those months of ODB coverage.

This minister, again and again, talks about how wonderful this government has been with regard to the drug program because they put 465 new products on, and they constantly talk about the fact that we did delist a number of products. The minister knows very well we delisted those on the advice of a joint committee and that many of the products that were delisted were completely out of time in terms of value to the patient. Many of those products were laxatives which were found to be damaging to those patients. Many of those products should never have been covered by the insurance plan at all.

It was the joint committee that looked at the effect of overdrugging of patients, the interaction of drugs for patients, that recommended those materials be delisted.

Let us be very clear: Yes, it is good that new materials, new drugs, new products that are coming available and that are useful, that the committee does feel are therapeutically useful to people, should be added to the plan and should be added quickly, but let us stop trying to make hay out of the delisting of products that are not useful and that may be therapeutically harmful to people, which are the products that were delisted by the previous government.

Let us be very clear that this minister ought to be very wise to understand that the only way he is going to make the targets that are in his estimates around the ODB program for next year will be by looking very hard at what this program pays for and what it doesn't pay for, and I expect we will see some more delisting of products that are not therapeutically sound for patients as well.

This minister has again and again tried to make hay about his close friendship with seniors. He departed from his prepared speech today -- which, I remind you, Mr Speaker, ministers are not supposed to do in statements -- to try and make political hay around a quotation from one of the advocates for senior citizens. I say to him very clearly: You may have praise today, but it doesn't cover up the incompetence that you have shown.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We too agree in principle with the announcement from the Minister of Finance. We agree with $3.8 million of taxpayers' money being saved. We also agree with the streamlining; better late than never.

We suspect that these kinds of negotiations, however tedious, were held under the veil of secrecy. We will be asking for an explanation vis-à-vis co-ops not being required to file financial statements. I guess accountants get in the way, accountants slow things down, so under the guise of streamlining we can get rid of that.

I want to remind the minister that page 42 of the budget document -- not the budget speech -- promised to address the dilemma that some Ontarians have faced under the life income fund. This is the mechanism, the key that generates the money coming in from locked-in retirement arrangements. You have made a commitment that you would address that, because some people, by virtue of the cap, don't have access to the money that they have spent a lifetime working for.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 1996-97 annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario, who has joined us here today. Welcome.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a Portuguese delegation headed by the secretary of state for Portuguese communities overseas, Mr Jose Lello; the consul general of Portugal, Mr Antonio Montenegro; and Count Botelho. Welcome.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): On Thursday, June 5, the member for Beaches-Woodbine raised a point of order with respect to the orderliness of Bill 136,

An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act. The government House leader and the member for Algoma also made submissions.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge that the issue of orderliness surrounding omnibus legislation has been raised in this House on a number of occasions. Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, and more recently Bill 47, the Tax Cut and Economic Growth Act, were the subject of Speaker's rulings in 1995 and 1996. These rulings enunciated certain principles relating to omnibus bills.

First, as with any ruling, in considering action with respect to an omnibus bill, the Speaker must first determine the bounds of his or her authority. To date, I know of no Speaker in any jurisdiction who has, on his or her own initiative, either caused a bill to be split or who has ruled a bill out of order because of its omnibus nature. That is not to say, as Speaker Lamoureux did, that a Speaker may not one day be faced with a piece of legislation that goes beyond what has been procedurally acceptable.

Second, the Speaker must determine whether or not the contents of a bill fall within the umbrella of a theme of relevancy. Beauchesne defines relevancy in this context, in part, as follows:

"Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy among the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the

long title of the bill."

I agree with Beauchesne's definition to a point. However, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Algoma argued, a bill cannot necessarily be saved by its title, no matter how long or all-encompassing it purports to be. For example, I would be hard-pressed to accept a bill that encompasses an entire legislative agenda simply because it was entitled "An Act to implement the provisions of the Speech from the Throne." A theme of relevancy is not achieved simply by virtue of what a bill's title says the bill does, or by the number of ministries a bill touches upon. A theme of relevancy is achieved when all the parts of the bill are linked in a tangible way.

While it is therefore possible to envisage a circumstance where a Speaker might be faced with no option but to break with tradition and rule an omnibus bill out of order, a Speaker would have to determine without doubt that a theme of relevancy does not exist.

Having reviewed Bill 136 carefully, and considering omnibus bills that in the past have been ruled in order, I do not find that the parts of this bill are so different as to have no connection to each other and therefore find the bill to be in order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Environment. Minister, you will be aware that today a number of environmental groups have formally requested that an investigation be held into the dumping by Ontario Hydro over the past many years of over 2.5 million pounds of toxic chemicals, including copper, zinc and tin, into Lake Ontario. I want to tell you, Minister, that I support their request.

I understand full well that Ontario Hydro is conducting its own investigation into this matter, but I would submit to you that it is your responsibility as Minister of Environment to conduct or to ensure that a full and independent inquiry is conducted into this mess. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I first want to clarify to the Leader of the Opposition that copper and zinc are not considered toxic materials. As you know, we all have copper in our homes and therefore we are all subject to some traces of copper --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Sterling: I think it's important that we get the facts straight here because the Leader of the Opposition is perhaps putting out the spectre that there's a problem with drinking water in every home because they have copper tubing in their homes.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): You should resign, Norm.

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm sorry. The truth is the truth with regard to this matter.

This is a serious matter. There is a process to go through. We have been looking into this matter. Ontario Hydro is looking into this matter --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: -- and when we have all the facts, we will take the appropriate action.

Mr McGuinty: You cannot shirk your responsibility in this matter. The fact of the matter is that zinc, copper and tin are toxic, persistent and they bioaccumulate. We're not talking about a few kilograms here; we're talking about two and a half million pounds which have been dumped into Lake Ontario. Hydro didn't report these emissions over the years, notwithstanding the fact that it was aware they were taking place. Hydro didn't initiate its own inquiry until this matter was made public.

What we're talking about here now, what you're saying, is that it's okay for the offender to conduct the investigation into the offence. That's what you're saying is acceptable, and I'm saying to you that is not acceptable.

You are charged with a special responsibility for protection of our natural environment. In that light, what I want you to do now is to stand up in this House and say you're going to assume that responsibility and you're going to ensure that you're going to conduct a full and independent inquiry into these emissions.

Hon Mr Sterling: Again, I wish the Leader of the Opposition would not put forward facts which are not borne out by science. Zinc and copper are not bioaccumulative. They are not, and that is a very serious allegation with regard to the character of the substances which he's talking about. Unfortunately, those facts are just not borne out by scientific evidence.

I am taking this matter seriously. There is a process which is under way with regard to whether an investigation should take place. We already have my science and standards branch looking into the matter. I understand as of today there's an application to the Environmental Commissioner to undertake an investigation. We have been phoning the Environmental Commissioner this morning to forward to us the application as soon as possible so that we can act upon it.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm absolutely amazed that this Minister of the Environment would sit here in 1997 and believe that lead and zinc are not dangerous to the waters in Ontario, that they're not dangerous to people with the accumulation that has occurred. I find it amazing that he would suggest that.

Clearly what has happened over the years -- and there's plenty of evidence to suggest there's been a major coverup at Ontario Hydro -- there has been a coverup to the ongoing dumping that has occurred, Minister, and you have responsibility to get to the bottom of this. It is not good enough that Hydro is investigating itself. We have long abandoned the practice of police investigating police. We have long abandoned practices of ministries investigating themselves.

By you sitting here and trying to skate around this, Minister, you're agreeing with what has happened over the years. You have a responsibility. The request this morning was very clear. What organizations and environmental groups across Ontario are requesting is an independent investigation into what has happened at Ontario Hydro. Will you agree today to carry out an independent, third-party investigation into the ongoings at Ontario Hydro and this coverup that has occurred over the years?

Hon Mr Sterling: The role of the Minister of Environment is similar to the role of the Solicitor General or whatever with regard to investigations and charges which might be laid. The minister is not involved with those decisions. The investigation and enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment has been lauded by the Environmental Commissioner for its procedures, its decisions and its independence, and I intend to protect that particular reputation which it has had in the past. They will have all the data to make the necessary decisions as per the EBR act.

The member opposite talks about lead. Lead is not even under consideration with regard to this particular problem. I wish the members opposite would talk about the scientific facts, the actual procedures, and not scare the people of Ontario beyond what is reasonable.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday in this House my colleague the member for Port Arthur raised an issue with you which I think is very important, and I want to return to that.

He told you about a young couple who live in his riding, who are the parents of two young children, a two-and-a-half-year-old and an eight-month-old, who suffer from a very rare skin disease. They suffer from this disease which doesn't allow them to go outside during the day. If they did go outside on a day like today, for instance, they would suffer third-degree burns.

In order to control their exposure, these parents are asking for a light meter and they're asking you to help them meet the cost of putting a special coating on the windows, because the kids suffer severe burns even while inside the house. They can't afford to incur that expense on their own, so they're asking for your help.

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

Mr McGuinty: Yesterday you put some nice comments on the record, but when the microphone wasn't on you said, "I think they should hold a fund-raiser." What I want you to do is to stand up now and apologize for saying that and commit --

The Speaker: Thank you, leader.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Yesterday the question was that I hadn't responded. In fact, the honourable member who asked the question had received a letter from me several days ago, dated May 29. I cannot comment on the case because it is an individual case. If at the end of the day the government is not able to fund the construction of the house and the renovations required, then yes, I would suggest that the community rally together, as we do thousands of times across the province, and try to help this family out. I will personally make a donation.

Mr McGuinty: This is very telling. This is a case of young parents who have two kids who are very, very sick. They have accepted their responsibility in life. They love those kids; they care for them; they nurture them, and they're asking for just a little bit of help from the government -- not a hell of a lot in the grand scheme of things. This minister is saying they're on their own. "They need money for their sick kids? Too damned bad about them. Go out there and fund-raise." You know something? In their community they have already raised over $28,000 for other expenses which they themselves have defrayed. They're looking for $20,000; that's all they're looking for.

Do you know how many other kids suffer from this in the province of Ontario? None. These parents are really on their own and they're just looking for a little bit of help from you. They don't give a damn about a tax cut. All they want is a bit of money to help their kids. Will you stand up and commit to that?

Hon Mr Wilson: So that the family in question doesn't get misled -- I have no idea what a tax cut has to do with this -- revenues are up in the province of Ontario, so there's more money coming in to pay for health care, in spite of your Liberal cousins in Ottawa cutting us by $2.1 billion.

I want to say to the honourable member, how do you get up every day, when your federal cousins have cut us by $2.1 billion, and honestly face your constituents and look the people of Ontario in the eyes? How do you do that, I ask the honourable member?

Mr McGuinty: Minister, just for a moment I want you to put the calculator aside. I want you to understand what these parents are feeling, I want you to understand their struggle and I want you to understand their lot in life.

The kids may reach the age of 18 because the numbers show that when you have kids who suffer from this they don't generally live beyond the age of 18. The parents have accepted their lot in life and all they want is just a little bit of help from their government. They need $20,000 to buy a light meter and to help put a special coating on the windows of the house so the kids don't get burned when they're inside the house. Now I want you to stand up in this House today and tell me that's something you're going to support because it's the right thing to do.

Hon Mr Wilson: First of all, the politicians will not make this decision. It is a medical case; it will be decided by the experts, so to keep making politics out of this -- I tell you I ran in this province, I ran in my constituency, we ran to take the politics out of health care and you keep putting it in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Opposition members, I know this is a difficult issue but the government members allowed your leader to put the question without a peep. I would ask you to give the same consideration to the minister.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): In spite of what he says.

The Speaker: Member for Fort York, thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: I can't share the details of the case with the honourable member but I assure you that if the experts who review the program and the application to the program -- and by the way, it was fully explained to him what's required in the May 29 letter and I hope he's given that to his constituents, and I can't even tell you whether we're waiting for the information back from his constituents or not --

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): There is no letter.

Hon Mr Wilson: I gave him another copy yesterday.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: Well, I did. I had it right here. It was sent over to you. I don't know what happened to it. Anyway, the end of the matter is that the experts will decide. If the doctors in the case and the experts who review the assistive devices program and other programs recommend it, we will fully pay for the renovations as we always do.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Attorney General: Today we received the Ombudsman's report into your bungling and destruction of the family support plan. It's a devastating report. The Ombudsman says your decision to lay off 85% of the staff last August caused hardship for the very children and women the plan was intended to serve, yet every time we raised the issues of how many children were going without support payments, you said these were isolated cases, that the plan was working better than ever.

Minister, your performance has been shameful. The punishment you have inflicted on the innocent children and women across this province is unforgivable. Will you now do the decent thing, finally, and resign because of your bungling and incompetence?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): No, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): That disdain reflects the total lack of concern this Attorney General has for the victims he's created by virtue of his gross mishandling. He's apologized for the inconvenience to family support plan clients, but look what the Ombudsman says:

"I hope they're not ignoring need but it's difficult to conclude otherwise right now, but I hope they'll listen as they put in place the restructuring initiatives they're talking about. I see ahead, if they don't listen, confusion; people who were previously not vulnerable becoming vulnerable. That's what you had in the family support plan: people who maybe by definition weren't poor going into the system became vulnerable because of government unfairness. We may have more of that."

The Attorney General just didn't inconvenience people, he victimized thousands of women and their kids. When is he going to accept responsibility and accept his responsibility as the Attorney General and go beyond merely apologizing for inconvenience, but before he hurts more women and their kids, resign?

Hon Mr Harnick: It bears noting that the Ombudsman has made certain recommendations. If the member cares to ask her, we've followed those recommendations, implemented those recommendations and that has been of great assistance in improving the family support plan.

The other thing that bears noting is that the family support plan has been racking up $100 million in debt, on average, for about the last 10 years, when the former Liberal government and the NDP government were running that plan.

We now have a bill that will permit us to begin to start, for the first time, to enforce support orders, to report to credit bureaus, this fall begin the suspension of drivers' licences, now be able to collect money in lump sums that were no longer able to be accessed. Certainly we've worked with the Ombudsman to implement her recommendations and improve the family support plan.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Minister, from day one you have tried to blame other governments, computer glitches, payors, employers, everyone else, for the mistake you made. It was you and you alone who decided it was more important to finance the tax cut on the backs of women and children than to ensure families got the support they were entitled to. You made the decision to close the eight regional offices of the family support plan. You laid off 290 staff in a single day. That's your legacy.

The Ombudsman has said in her report that the "family support plan was wrong in its failure to ensure an adequate level of service for its clients, retain sufficient trained personnel to ensure provision of essential services, monitor its enforcement actions, adequately notify its clients of the availability of, and eligibility criteria for, reimbursement of expenses incurred."

This report is damning, Minister, of your decisions and your conduct and how that impacted on thousands and thousands of families right across this province. Why don't you, for a change, accept responsibility for what you did and resign today?

Hon Mr Harnick: I have indicated that we had considerable difficulties during the transition, and we have worked with the Ombudsman to correct the problems to the point where we now are able to answer 50% of the callers who try to access the plan. The plan is now disbursing 12% more money to women and children than it did a year ago. Some 95% of the payments the plan is making are doing it within 24 to 48 hours. We're receiving letters thanking us that the plan is now able to do more than it's ever done before.

We are addressing the most fundamental problem and that's to change the family support plan from a cheque clearing house to a real enforcement agency that can collect the debt the previous two governments didn't care about. We are now going to try and collect money for women and children the other two parties have written off. We are going to do that. We are implementing that. We have $5 million in increased budget --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I have a question to the government House leader, but I would say to the Attorney General, never have we seen someone refuse to accept responsibility like this.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): House leader, I asked the Premier about the conflict-of-interest situations being caused by your privatization policy. Both you and the Premier seem remarkably unconcerned, despite the case of Carl Vervoort, who was found by your own investigation to be in violation of the Public Service Act. With your policy of privatization, we are going to see more and more cases of conflict of interest, more and more cases where the taxpayer will wonder, "Who is protecting my interests?" Who is ensuring that your privatization process doesn't result in situations where private companies make a profit and taxpayers lose?

Minister, are you saying you're not going to bring in legal measures to protect the public interest? You said back on April 23 that it was important. Are you now saying you're not going to bring in a new law to protect the public interest in these privatization situations?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): We've made it abundantly clear that the procedures we inherited from the government represented by the leader of the third party were not adequate, were not sufficient.

On April 23 I stood in this in this House and announced that the government would introduce Management Board directives associated with new conflict-of-interest guidelines pertaining to employees of agencies, boards and commissions, senior staff of the various ministries and political staff. In addition, we indicated that we would introduce the lobby registration legislation. Those principles are in place today; those principles are being observed today and are there for the protection of the people of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you're trying to steal your notes from the Attorney General about pushing off responsibility on someone else. It doesn't work. It's your privatization policy which is allowing people to get insider information and then go out there and join the private sector company they just negotiated a contract with. No one who looks at this objectively would let it pass. Everyone who has looked at this kind of privatization process that you've started says it won't protect taxpayers, won't protect the public interest.

What are you going to do? Carl Vervoort negotiated the contract, then went out to the private sector and is benefiting from the contract he negotiated while he was in the public service. You can't do a thing about him with your guidelines. You don't know how much he may stand to profit eventually. You don't know how much he may take advantage of the system eventually.

When are you going to bring in legislation? After the problem is out there everywhere in the province? Are you going to protect the public interest or are you going to worry about your private sector friends? Which is it?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite has a habit of making wild allegations. We've already heard those with regard to the casino corporation. The Premier yesterday indicated that we have a letter that indicates that the member should check his facts in that particular case.

Again in this particular instance of an investigation that was taking place, the member is indicating that some particular individual has negotiated a contract -- completely false. He throws out wild allegations on the floor of this House and assumes they're facts when they're not.

This government has taken action, unlike the previous government, which had this same issue before it. Did it take any action? Absolutely none.

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

Hon David Johnson: This government has taken action. We introduced Management Board directives on the floor of this House on April 23 which are in effect today; the principles are in effect today. This government has taken action, announcing lobbyist legislation which will be in place later this year to protect the --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Minister, clearly you are trying to pass the blame to somebody else, just as the Attorney General has done over and over again when it comes to the family support plan. The fact is, it is your government that is moving to privatize these services and it is incumbent upon your government to make sure there are proper conflict-of-interest guidelines to protect the public from such abuses.

I have yet another case. In northeastern Ontario, where your government is now moving to privatize the Ministry of Transportation road maintenance services, your ministry went to the employees and tried to answer questions from the union. I want to respond by way of the document I got from the union about what your ministry, the Ministry of Transportation, had to say about privatization for contracts that haven't even been awarded yet.

"Will offers of employment come from the contractor or the ministry?" The answer from the ministry is that IMOS will contact the individual employees to make job offers. The contract hasn't even been awarded and your ministry is already saying the job offers will come from IMOS.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Bisson: The question is simply this: Clearly your government has to have in place conflict-of-interest guidelines --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: It's a bit curious that representatives of the previous government are up with such rage on something they clearly had the opportunity to deal with. They didn't. This government inherited this situation, found it to be wanting and brought in guidelines, guidelines under which a member of the civil service, for example, if they have had significant dealings with a particular firm, cannot switch from the civil service to that private sector firm within 12 months. If they have worked on a file in the government, they cannot shift to the private sector and work on that same file.

That is in force and effect today. That's what we've been working on. That's what we've introduced. That's what's going to protect the people of the province, along with the lobbyist legislation. The previous government had the choice, had the opportunity to do that and did not do it. We have done it.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the response the Minister of Health gave to the Leader of the Opposition recently, he stated that a letter was delivered to me yesterday. This was not the case. I want to make it very clear. I have checked with my office. No letter was delivered to me.

The Speaker: Thank you. That's not a point of order.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Attorney General. I want to return to the issue of the family support plan. For 10 months now, we have been raising our concerns about the family support plan. We knew from the time you shut down the regional offices that there was going to be chaos, and week after week we've brought the stories of that chaos into this House, stories of women who literally could not pay the rent or buy groceries because their cheques were so late, stories of support-paying parents who were having deducted more than their court order, stories of money that's meant for children sitting in banks, all because you couldn't get your act together.

Now the Ombudsman has investigated this. She has agreed that this plan has been a mess. She has said that you should apologize to the clients for the hardship you've caused by your failure to provide an adequate level of service. More than that, she has recommended that you take steps to make sure that clients are reimbursed for the expenses that were incurred because of your delays. Exactly what will you do to make sure that every client is reimbursed for the expenses caused by your making such a mess of this?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We have indicated to clients of the family support plan that if they have incurred expenses, they should submit those expenses and we will deal with the expense claims as sent in. Certainly that has been conveyed, and we have discussed that with the Ombudsman, who was satisfied with the solutions we implemented.

Mrs McLeod: The problem the Ombudsman did not deal with in her report today is that this program is still in a mess, despite all the words and all the assurances that the minister provides. Those of us who are working in constituency offices know we are still flooded by concerns from people who cannot get their family support. My own office has 21 cases outstanding as we speak. My constituency assistant sits on a phone for two afternoons a week just trying to get those cases dealt with. An individual client doesn't have a chance, and every member of this House knows that is a fact.

The Ombudsman says to evaluate the experience, but we know what happened. We know that you closed down the regional offices because you had to cut costs just for the sake of cutting costs. We know there was a problem with the family support plan. You didn't understand the problem, and your cuts made the problem worse. It's not enough to just evaluate the problem and know where you made your mistake; you've got to fix it. I ask you today, will you go back to square one? Will you fix the mess by reopening the regional offices and get this right now?

Hon Mr Harnick: It bears noting that over 80% of all cheques that the family support plan now handles go through electronic banking. The plan can now be in a position to deal with what the plan should be dealing with: the collection of arrears.

Anyone who thinks this plan has operated in a successful way at any time is very wrong, because this plan has created $100 million in debt annually for women and children. We are now dealing with creating an enforcement agency that can successfully --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): So what's the point?

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Blame everyone else, eh, Charles? Blame everyone else.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. First, I want the members for Sudbury East and Welland-Thorold to come to order. Plus, member for Welland-Thorold, that comment is out of order. I would ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw my appeal to Harnick to try telling the truth for once.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I'll give you one more opportunity; it's withdraw or don't withdraw. The option is yours, but I'd ask you to make the decision.

Mr Kormos: Withdraw.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Harnick: We are now disbursing more money at a faster rate than the plan has ever disbursed before. The very essence of what we're trying to do is collect money that has accumulated by way of debt at a rate of $100 million a year. If the parties opposite think that's a measure of success, I can tell you I totally disagree with them. They're absolutely wrong.

We're going to try to reverse that trend by running the family support plan --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

WATER QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, I recently asked you in this Legislature to take responsibility for the Ontario Hydro discharge of toxic metals from its nuclear plants and order an independent investigation.

First you tried to hide behind the fact that no citizen had asked you to investigate. Well, today they have, and what do we hear from you today? Now you are, incredibly, trying to hide behind the independent nature of the Environmental Bill of Rights. It is your job to protect the environment. Stop hiding and making excuses. Will you announce an independent investigation now, today?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): As I said before, there is a process. I think it's important for the Minister of Environment to follow that process with regard to any charge or any investigation or any look into an investigation that a citizen or an event might bring forward. I don't think I should be going down to my investigations branch and saying, "Undertake an investigation" or not. The Environmental Bill of Rights puts forward a process whereby the director and the assistant directors get together and make that kind of decision. That process, I was told this morning, has begun. I think we should follow that process through.

Ms Churley: Minister, you seem to forget that you are responsible for Hydro. Your answer today to previous questions and previously when you stated that copper and zinc are not toxic and indeed are good for fish remind me of a previous Tory environmental minister, Morley Kells, saying that a PCB spill on the highway was not a big deal but it might hurt rats if they wandered on to the highway. It's the same kind of response.

That huge a quantity of copper and zinc are persistent and bioaccumulate in fish. It can take up to 100 years to go away. There also appears to be a deliberate coverup by Hydro with the falsification of numbers. This is a very serious matter. This is not your routine little environmental problem; this is big. This is very serious, and you sit there and try to fob it off on somebody else.

I'm asking you again, because this is not going to go away, will you announce an independent investigation today? Take responsibility; it's your job.

Hon Mr Sterling: The member is incorrect. Copper and zinc at these levels are not toxic. The levels we're talking about are one hundredth of the drinking quality standards in Ontario set by her government, the previous government. I'm sorry, the member is wrong; copper and zinc are not bioaccumulative. There is not a drinking water problem.

However, as I said to the member in my first response, we are following a consistent process which I think it is important to do in terms of enforcement matters, to ensure that all citizens, be they government-controlled or not government-controlled, are treated consistently. I will do that as the minister, I will fulfil my responsibilities as a minister, and that is the correct way to act in this matter.

JOB CREATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Finance, and it relates to the recent news reports of more jobs being created, which is an indication of the improving economy in Ontario. I'm hearing that Ontario is creating 1,000 jobs every day.

Like so many parents, I've been concerned with the current lack of job prospects for our youth. Over the past few days I've read several newspaper articles with encouraging job statistics. I have had optimistic quotes from young people like Rebecca Archibald after finding job prospects better than in previous years.

However, after all this good news, there are still those pessimists out there. Some continue to paint a bleak picture on employment and the economic forecast. Minister, could you give this House and my constituents of Durham East an update on Ontario's economy and jobs?

Interjections.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Never have I received so much advice about how to answer a question.

As the member will know, the Ontario economy has created more than 100,000 net new jobs in the last three months alone. This is the equivalent of well over 1,000 jobs a day being created in the province. There are more people working in Ontario today than ever before in its history, some 5.403 million people working in the province, and 65% of those jobs in the last three months Canada-wide have been created right here in Ontario.

No less an authority than Paul Martin, the finance minister of Canada himself, projects that employment will increase by a minimum of 300,000 to 350,000 in Canada this year. The recent Nortel announcement --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, we'll have to wait for the supplementary.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that very comprehensive response, Minister.

Our government's plan has been working hard to cut taxes, eliminate red tape and create opportunity, hope and jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: It is evident in my riding of Durham East that there is new business growth. An

article which appeared yesterday in the Toronto Star indicated that small business could be saved if only the federal government would examine the EI premiums and their reduction for this province.

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: It's clear that good news isn't being widely received here today. Minister, could you comment on how the level of employment insurance actually affects the status of job creation in Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: Payroll taxes obviously affect job creation numbers, not only in Ontario but indeed in any province. As members will know, by the end of this year there will be a surplus in the federal EI account of some $12 billion. While I can appreciate as much as anybody the need for prudence and fiscal planning, surely $12 billion is more than a sufficient surplus to account for any shortfall that may occur in future years.

There is room for the federal government to lower EI premiums to $2.20, where they started in the first place. This would create literally hundreds of thousands of jobs across Canada, especially here in Ontario. I would urge my colleagues opposite to encourage Mr Martin and their federal colleagues to do the same.

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Health. As you have said in this House, a community hospital doesn't belong to the government; it doesn't belong to the restructuring commission; it belongs to the people in the community.

With the ordered closing of Northwestern hospital, it is beyond belief that my community received a letter wherein your hospital restructuring commission denied them a right to a hearing whereby they could plead their case for the hospital they built with their blood, sweat and tears, brick by brick, bed by bed. Your restructuring commission said, "We won't even give you an hour of time to hear you."

Do you agree with that position taken by your restructuring commission not to give the builders of the hospital, the owners of the hospital, even an hour to hear their case?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant. I cannot interfere in the proceedings of the commission.

Mr Colle: The scary thing is we're about to lose 10 community hospitals in Toronto. Hospitals, as you have said, belong to our communities. They belong to the volunteers, the people who had fund-raisers, the people who volunteered there on a daily basis. They're about to lose their hospitals.

You're in charge of this commission; you appointed them. The buck stops at your desk. How can you not stand up and say in this House to at least give the community an hour to be heard and plead their case? How can you say you won't even allow that hearing? As minister, please say something about giving the builders, the owners of the hospital, a hearing.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is extremely unfair in his question. I don't give them the hearing and I did not say I would not give them a hearing. I cannot interfere in the work of the commission, and the honourable member understands that.

What I would say to the party opposite is, how can you defend a system where a third of the hospitals in Metro Toronto are empty, yet our waiting lists for services are growing every day? Buildings don't cure people; people cure people.

In spite of the $2-billion cut from your federal Liberal cousins, we spend 20% more per person on health care in this province than any other jurisdiction in Canada, yet we have waiting lists. Why? Because we have money tied up in redundant bricks and mortar, in duplication, in excessive administration. We need less of that stuff and more services for people. That is what the commission is doing. That is what all of us should be doing to improve the health care system.

CARIBANA

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Citizenship. It concerns Caribana, North America's largest cultural festival, and the fact that it's celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.

The minister will know that Caribana is a success story, culturally and economically. It's a generator of jobs and revenues. It has enormous potential to generate summer jobs for youth. It already provides significant revenues for small business. It is a magnet for tourism, with the parade drawing an attendance of over a million people from across North America.

But this year all of this is at risk all because of a logistical dispute over security with the Metro Toronto Police. We asked you about this last week. The situation still isn't resolved. It's absurd to cancel the biggest cultural event in North America because of a logistical problem. Will you step in now and show some leadership and bring the Metro Toronto Police back to the table so that the parade can go on?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): It is my understanding that the CCC and local officials are continuing to try to meet to resolve this particular issue. Certainly our government encourages the committee to continue working with Metro police, the Metro government and indeed the city of Toronto. But it would inappropriate of me personally to interfere with the workings of the local police because this matter falls within their jurisdiction. I can tell you, however, that the Premier has indicated that he is going to get his staff to contact Chairman Tonks and Caribana officials to see if this matter can be resolved.

Mr Hampton: Let me give you an example of what's at stake here. This is an ad that was in the New York Times. It's placed there by the Canadian Tourism Commission, of which your government is part, and it advertises the Caribana parade. It says, "This colourful Caribbean festival culminates in a huge parade through downtown Toronto." This is being advertised across the continent.

All we're asking is for you to show some leadership, to be a mediator, a conciliator. Bring the parties to the table and work out this logistical problem. Your government has no problem interfering with health care across the province, school boards across the province, forcing municipal amalgamation across the province. Here, with some productive intervention, you can do a good thing. That's all we're asking you to do. Show some leadership. Get involved, bring the parties to the table and let's get on with a very good parade.

Hon Ms Mushinski: As I already indicated in my first response, I believe the Premier is indeed showing leadership with respect to that component.

Having said that, let me also say this: Two years ago, I wrote to all our agencies and advised them this government would no longer be playing a very significant funding role in funding festivals. We advised Caribana of that two years ago, but to assist them with the transition we did approve $67,500 last year to assist them with long-term marketing initiatives. This was in keeping with the Metro chairman's task force on the future of Caribana, which I understand they're continuing to discuss at the table.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister knows I've been an advocate on behalf of persons with disabilities for very many years, including eight years as our party's spokesperson for disability issues when we were on the other side of the House.

I have long been disturbed by the unfairness of Ontario's social assistance rules which penalize disabled persons who receive assistance or gifts from their families. The amount of a family's assistance is deducted from the disabled person's benefit, even if it's for critical need, such as assistive devices, support services and housing. What steps are you taking to address this unfair situation?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you to the honourable member for an excellent question. She highlights certainly one of the reasons why we have to remove people with disabilities from the welfare system. It's not a program that's designed to meet their needs. We've received many recommendations, excellent suggestions from the disabled community and that is what we are following in this instance. We will be allowing families who can and are able to assist in terms of any other expenses, for example, education expenses, so that the person will not be penalized if they make that gift, that financial donation to help them. That's one improvement.

Second, we are also allowing additional contributions for any other expenses, that they can make those up to a maximum to assist their adult child. For example, many parents like to assist an adult child with disabilities in terms of setting them up in an independent living arrangement. This will allow them to indeed do that.

Mrs Marland: Many parents of disabled adult children have met with me to discuss their fears about how their adult children will survive when the parents are no longer living. These parents want their children to be able to continue living in the community rather than face a future in institutional care. They would like to establish adequate trust funds to help provide for their children, but under the current rules for family benefits that is impossible. Minister, I would like to know if you have addressed this serious concern in your proposal for a new Ontario disability support program.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Like the member for Mississauga South, I have met with many elderly parents who have adult children who have disabilities and their concern about how to make provision for their children when they pass on has certainly registered in terms of that needs to be changed and we need to make an improvement. So it is our intention that we will increase the amount of money that will be allowed in trusts up to $100,000. It's currently at $65,000. We're going to allow it to be at $100,000 and also we will allow the interest on that trust to grow within that trust up to $100,000.

Before, the interest was calculated and deductions were made. In addition, any interest above that can also be used for expenses to improve the quality of life for the person with disabilities.

I think these are improvements that people representing the disabled community have been lobbying for and I understand they meet many of the needs they have identified.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. She just responded to the issue regarding the Ontario disability support program. Everything she announced that would be encouraging individuals with disabilities to get out, find and keep a job, are things that will cost the government money. Let's be clear. This ministry has been cut $177 million. The announcement last week with great fanfare sets out items that, yes, will cost the government money and, yes, are required to get these people jobs and keep them.

Next week or this week, this minister will introduce legislation that will change the definition and the criteria for disabled. I would like to ask the minister: With your new criteria, will there be more people or fewer people who have disabilities able to receive support they need?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Of course the cost of this program is going to increase because the number of people with disabilities in the population is increasing. We quite anticipate that there will be more people, unfortunately, who will have to rely on income support, those individuals with disabilities. That's why we think it's important to make the program work for their needs so it is there for those individuals when and if they need it.

Mrs Pupatello: There are a number of groups out there that really would like the minister to answer the question. The change in the criteria means only two things: It will change. You've acknowledged it's changing. The change will mean it's more inclusive or less inclusive. You're changing it. That means something changes, clearly. What does that mean?

I want to know, will there be fewer people who are able to receive all the good benefits you announced, or have you in fact raised the bar and you're finding the money for those programs in one way: You are going to take people out of the system because they no longer meet the criteria? Minister, when you announce your legislation some time this month, we will be looking forward to that. I have no further supplementary.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, the definition is changing because people from the disabled community told us the definition needed to change. So yes, we have been very clear about that, it is going to change. It needs to recognize that whether or not someone has a disability, what is important is the impact of that disability on their life, the impact of that disability in terms of how they can function in the community, in the home, in the workplace. Yes, the definition must remove labels like "permanently unemployable." That does not meet the needs of people with disabilities.

Yes, the definition has to recognize that people with disabilities often have recurrent problems and, yes, that's what we are attempting to do in the new definition. We have listened. They've wanted us to make changes and that's why we're doing them.

I repeat, because obviously the honourable member didn't hear me the first time, of course there will be more people who need this program, as more people with disabilities unfortunately will be occurring in an aging population.

SAULT COLLEGE

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Perhaps the minister could explain to the House and to the people of Algoma district why it is that the programs of the Sault College campuses in Wawa, serving north Algoma, and in Elliot Lake, serving Elliot Lake and the North Shore in the eastern part of Algoma, are being discontinued and the outreach to those parts of Algoma and the communities of Algoma will no longer continue.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm sure the member opposite knows and understands that the programs that are offered by a college are provided and offered after a review by the governors of the college, by people in the community looking at the services that are needed by that community, the programs that are needed by the students in that local area. Those decisions are not made by the Ministry of Education and Training; they are made by the college.

Mr Wildman: The minister will know that the Sault College budget has been slashed by almost $12 million since 1995 and that the governors are making decisions on the basis of not having enough money to carry out the programs. Besides the cut in access for students in north Algoma and east Algoma, the cuts at Elliot Lake have resulted in the loss of 21 jobs in that community, or a payroll of $1.5 million, and in north Algoma a loss of 17 jobs, or $892,000 in payroll. What effect does the minister think this is going to have on the economy -- the private sector, the retail sector, the real estate values in Wawa and Elliot Lake -- besides the lack of access for students?

Hon Mr Snobelen: First, I think the honourable member knows that the government asked colleges and universities to find savings that were in the Common Sense Revolution, part of the package that we put out a year before the last election, and that this year we have not asked colleges and universities to make further reductions. In fact with regard to the colleges, we have allowed them to participate for a longer period in the program of matching grants from the province and local community to help students most in need.

We have also been working with our colleges subsequent to the Smith committee report, and my colleague Tom Froese, the parliamentary assistant, who is responsible for this inside the ministry, has been working with the colleges now on how to make sure the programs they offer are consistent with the needs of students in the future. So yes, we have asked the colleges and universities for savings, but now we are looking at the investments that we need to make as a province and a college system to meet the needs that students will have in the future.

That means a very different college system in some ways. That means colleges that are built around excellent programs designed to provide the training for the jobs of the future, and I believe we are well along the path to do just that. I am quite proud of our college program in Ontario.

TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training as well. As you are aware, this government is focusing education resources into the classroom. Since technology is such an important aspect of everyone's lives these days, my constituents in the riding of Oshawa have expressed their concern to me about the importance of their children having access to technology in the classroom. Can you tell my constituents what the Ministry of Education is doing to ensure that their children have access to the technology needed to enhance their education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for the question. In 1996-97, the government will spend about $68 million in grants for technologies for our schools. This includes a doubling of the TIPP grants and a particular focus of those grants on the early years of education of our very youngest students.

Also, I initiated last December a series of round table discussions with people from the technologies, educators, parents and some students to talk about not just technology for technology's sake but the role of technology in the schools of the future. We believe we need to move our students to that classroom of the future as quickly as we can so they can acquire the skills, the knowledge, the habits and the disciplines that will be relevant for our students who will be graduating in the year 2010 and beyond.

We are focusing on what technologies will support teachers and support students in the literacy that they will need to have in the year 2010, on developing the curiosity they'll need to be successful in their lives and on the sense of self-reliance that they'll also need. We have, I believe, made a commitment to having the top student achievement in Canada. We know that to do that we need the best-resourced classrooms in Canada and we are making those moves right now.

PETITIONS

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative of Assembly Ontario, and it concerns the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax.

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax does not recognize the uniqueness of the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris should know that gas prices are higher in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax is blatantly unfair to the north; and

"Whereas we have no voice for the north fighting for northerners around the cabinet table;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revoke the new tax imposed on the north by Mike Harris and convince the Tory government to understand that, indeed, northern Ontario residents do not want the new Mike Harris vehicle registration tax."

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

COURT DECISION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): For the record, the petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to do away with the topless law."

The petition I have from my riding of Simcoe East is a federal constitutional issue and a ruling on this question was reached in the Supreme Court, so that's a petition which is unconstitutional in this House.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature to it.

BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition qui me provient des Amis de la bibliothèque publique de Bourget.

«Aux membres de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

«Étant donné que nous croyons fermement que la responsabilité provinciale dans les bibliothèques publiques en Ontario est un droit fondamental de tous les Ontariens et toutes les Ontariennes ;

«Nous, les soussignés, demandons aux membres de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario de sauvegarder la responsabilité provinciale dans les bibliothèques publiques en s'assurant de maintenir ce qui suit :

«(1)Les subventions provinciales qui permettent d'assurer à tous les Ontariens et à toutes les Ontariennes un accès équitable aux documents et aux services de bibliothèque publique ;

«(2)La coordination des programmes de partage des ressources tels que le système de prêt entre bibliothèques et l'accès au réseau Internet ;

«(3)Une politique permettant d'assurer l'existence du réseau des bibliothèques publiques de l'Ontario ;

«(4)L'aide directe de la part du gouvernement provincial au niveau du service, par exemple par l'entremise du Service des bibliothèques de l'Ontario-Sud et du Service des bibliothèques de l'Ontario du Nord ;

«(5)Une loi maintenant l'autonomie des conseils d'administration des bibliothèques publiques.»

Et j'y ajoute ma signature. Merci.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there is no dialysis treatment currently available in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas this lack of medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa or Kingston several times each week, even during dangerous weather conditions, to receive the basic medical attention, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the promise made by the Minister of Health has, to date, not been kept, resulting in local patients and their families and friends continuing to drive to Ottawa and Kingston for treatment several times per week during the above-noted conditions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the health minister follows through on the commitment made in April of last year to set up the long-awaited and much-needed facilities in the Cornwall area for Cornwall residents."

I have also signed the petition.

BEAR HUNTING

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

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the cubs killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

This is a petition that contains a great many names from my area of the province and is brought forward by the Animal Alliance of Canada.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a petition from the good people on Westmount Avenue against prescription user fees, very appropriate today.

"Whereas the government of Mike Harris has broken its pre-election promise not to impose user fees on health care;

"Whereas the user fees imposed by the Harris government on prescription drugs are causing low-income seniors grave hardship;

"Whereas the vast majority of seniors have worked very hard and have paid taxes for decades;

"Whereas seniors are most concerned that this will be the beginning of more and more user fees on health care;

"We, the undersigned, totally oppose the Mike Harris prescription user fees for seniors and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Mike Harris government place a moratorium on all health care user fees for seniors."

I affix my name to this petition.

TUITION FEES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition here signed by several hundred people concerned about rising student tuition fees.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-secondary educational costs have been increasing due to economic and technological changes;

"Whereas student tuition fees have increased greatly over the past few years;

"Whereas the cost of living for students continues to increase;

"Whereas students are unable to continue their education due to high costs;

"Whereas future economic growth depends on access to post-secondary education;

"Whereas the panel on the Future Directions for Postsecondary Education recognizes the inadequacy in financial resources available to post-secondary education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to renew its financial commitment for post-secondary education and to recognize that a multi-year commitment to the restoration of support must be guaranteed."

This comes from Claudio Monteleone in Thunder Bay, and I'm very proud to sign my name to this petition.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition concerns worker safety.

"To the Honourable Solicitor General and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years;

"We, the undersigned, request that Solicitor General Bob Runciman, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in full agreement with it.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition from the people of Durham East today.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness; and

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic; and

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require elective procedures to be funded; and

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the province exclusively to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of over $25 million;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial health insurance plan."

I am pleased to present this petition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The petition campaign to save TVO continues remarkably across the province. Thousands and thousands of petitions are coming in. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality non-commercial television that continues to focus 70% of its programming on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVO is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVO continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that TVOntario continues to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

I am very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

ABORTION

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

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness; and

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic; and

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require elective procedures to be funded; and

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the provinces exclusively to determine what services will be insured;

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of over $25 million;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial health insurance plan."

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a petition from the good people on Davenport Road. It's "Save Northwestern Hospital":

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the 1995 provincial election campaign, Mike Harris promised he would not close hospitals; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris hospital closing commission has ordered the closing of 10 hospitals in Metro Toronto alone; and

"Whereas closing community hospitals like Northwestern General Hospital and creating more costly mega-hospitals will greatly diminish the quality of health care while increasing costs;

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

"That Mike Harris keep his campaign promise not to close hospitals and keep community hospitals open across Ontario as he promised."

I affix my name to this petition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as well on behalf of TVOntario.

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality, commercial-free television that continues to focus 70% of its programming

schedule on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVOntario is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVOntario continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

In support, I put my signature to it.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement with it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES FINANCIERS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 140,

An Act to establish the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 140, Loi créant la Commission des services financiers de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary Leadston): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I really don't have any brief remarks; I made them earlier today. I think this bill will indeed improve how financial services are delivered to Ontarians and protect the consumer at the same time.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Guzzo moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary Leadston): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm pleased to introduce this bill today. The bill makes provisions for the Municipal Act providing for the restructuring of municipalities applicable to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and its constituent municipalities. It has been requested by the local municipalities in order to help them with their restructuring efforts.

If I might, Mr Speaker, at this time I'd like to pay tribute to Mayor Brian Coburn of Cumberland, the chair of the mayors' committee in Ottawa-Carleton, and his predecessor, Mayor Merle Nicholds of Kanata, for their collective leadership in what has been accomplished in Ottawa-Carleton to date.

I'm pleased to advise also that the three mayors of the municipalities, Ottawa, Gloucester and Nepean, portions of which I represent in the Ottawa-Rideau riding, have all embraced the procedure that has commenced and demonstrated a commitment to their community as a whole, laying aside all partisan feelings. I personally thank Mayor Jacquelin Holzman of Ottawa, Mayor Claudette Cain of Gloucester, and Mayor Ben Franklin of Nepean, in behalf of the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton.

I also, if I might, wish to acknowledge the work of Councillor Brian McGarry of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, who has been a driving force behind the movement which brought our municipal leaders together. His leadership and his perseverance have kept the forces of division in check and --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau, I beg your indulgence. It was merely a point to give a brief explanation of your bill and not an elaborate, elongated response.

Mr Guzzo: I appreciate that, but I'd be remiss if not mentioning Councillor McGarry's contribution. I apologize for overspeaking. The municipality has been very well served by the municipal leaders.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sure; thank you.

OPPOSITION DAY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I move opposition day motion number 7:

Whereas Mike Harris promised Ontarians in the last election that there would be "no new user fees for health care"; and

Whereas the government broke this promise on July 15, 1996, by imposing $225 million per year in user fees on prescription drugs for seniors, people with disabilities and the poor; and

Whereas Mike Harris forced seniors earning over $16,075 to pay a $100 "annual" user fee and all subsequent dispensing fees while charging poorer seniors a $2 user fee for every prescription filled; and

Whereas Mike Harris added insult to injury when he forced seniors to pay another "annual" $100 fee on April 1, 1997, only eight and a half months after the last so-called "annual" fee; and

Whereas this double-charging amounts to a $30-million ripoff; and

Whereas these new user fees are causing undue hardship for Ontario seniors, many of whom must now choose between paying the rent, buying food or filling necessary prescriptions; and

Whereas we have a special responsibility to ensure seniors are treated with dignity and respect;

Therefore, this House calls on Mike Harris to admit that he broke a key election promise, to review the impact these new user fees have had on seniors' lives, to keep his election promise by scrapping these user fees and, at the very least, to correct his blatant ripoff by giving seniors a three-and-a-half-month credit on this unfair user fee.

I am delighted to lead the debate on my motion. I'm also pleased that there's some time to say today that the minister through his announcement, admitting of course the government's mistake in charging seniors for 12 months while allowing for an eight-and-a-half-month benefit period, has announced in the House that the government would extend the program to cover the full 12 months, crediting an extra four months.

With all respect, the seniors have already paid, as of April 1, another $100 which should have been July 15 of this year and not April 1. Indeed the government is not crediting anything to those seniors who have already paid.

Regardless, it's shameful that seniors had to come to Queen's Park begging to get what was rightfully theirs, what they had paid for. If it weren't for seniors, seniors' groups and for us, the opposition, if it weren't for the fact that day after day since April 1 we've been after the minister and the government, saying, "This is wrong; you cannot penalize seniors, you cannot take away what's just, what's fair," this wouldn't have happened today. I'm delighted that seniors have won this battle, that the government has retreated and has recognized it as such.

Since the government initiated the program last year, it has taken in some $225 million, and the three and a half months the government has recognized and has credited today was to bring in another $30 million.

Why do the seniors feel so strongly about the program and the $100? For a couple of reasons. It is not fair that the government keeps on picking on the most needy in our society, especially seniors. They felt that the government was cheating on the promise made to them prior to the election, when the Premier and of course those campaigning, now ministers, said "No new user fees."

When seniors saw they were paying $100, let alone the $2 plus prescription fees, and then three and a half months early they had to pay another $100, they were angry and felt cheated by their own government. I am pleased that they have shown the government they are picking on a particular interest group, if you will, that will not stand by, will not sit idle and be trampled upon by a very uncaring government.

Since July last year, the seniors have been paying and contributing to the system. But that's not what the government has been saying, especially in the last few days when we've been asking questions of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, the minister responsible for seniors' issues and the Premier himself. They said: "That's okay. The seniors have accepted our plan. We have met.

We have consulted widely with seniors' groups and we have listened." This is ironic, because if indeed the government had met with and listened to those groups, they would never or should never have introduced such a plan, which would penalize seniors who can't afford an unnecessary and undue user fee or copayment.

When we have a Premier who keeps on saying, "That's okay, because we have met and have discussed this very widely with seniors' groups and they agree; they are very generous and they don't mind paying this $100 to help others," I wonder if the government has really met with some of these people, if the government has really listened to some of these people. Let me tell you, I represent perhaps one of the lowest-income and poorest working areas in Metro, if not in Ontario, and I have an extremely large senior population.

I don't think you would find one of those seniors living so comfortably that they would be so generously willing to do away with money they need for their own prescriptions and give it to somebody else.

Do you know who that somebody else would be? I have wonderful people in my riding who are as generous as the rest of Ontarians, but it's not to help some others in need. It is to give that $30 million to those people who don't need it, because the government has created a monster, and it's called a 30% rebate. Seniors are angered because they should not be picked on to compensate for the promise the Premier made prior to the election, so he can accomplish the 30% rebate. The seniors are rebelling at that.

The minister continues saying, "They are generous people, and they want to help others." Let me tell you, we have seniors -- individuals and groups -- saying: "I have to buy a number of prescriptions and pay. I've got to go and ask my pharmacist which one is most important, because I can't afford to buy all three or four or five of them. I have to ask the pharmacist which is the most important, because that's all I can afford." For the benefit of the minister, I have one here just received fresh this afternoon; one prescription alone is $92.40, plus $7.56 for the patient's other charges. This already tops the $100, one prescription.

We have the minister saying, "Don't worry about it." They say, "Some of the people are willingly agreeing to pay $100 so we can give it to somebody else." But this doesn't go to some other needy people. If there are needy people, it's the responsibility of this government to look after those needy people and not to pick on them. But unfortunately the government is not doing what it's preaching, because if this was the case, seniors wouldn't come down to Queen's Park saying, "Mr Minister, we want to meet with you." This is in their press release of June 4.

If the seniors are down here, it is because the government didn't genuinely sit with these groups and listen to them widely, as the minister has been quoted as saying.

But no, seniors had to come downtown and shame the government into correcting the injustice, the wrong that has been placed on the most needy in our society. The seniors came downtown, saying to the minister and the Premier, "Meet with us, because we have a problem with the plan." It's not only the $100, the yearly deductible; the seniors have a problem with the entire concept, with the entire plan, because as I have shown you, one prescription alone, $92, with all the other charges brings the whole thing already above the $100.

Today the government has realized that you just can't fool a very sensitive, particular group in our society: our seniors. The government has learned a tremendous lesson today; I hope they have. It's not only that the announcement that was made today will solve the problem; it will not. It will not solve the problem one bit. The problems associated with the Ontario drug benefit program go very far; they reach many, not only the seniors who have paid $100. It's very encompassing in many other areas with respect to health care for seniors and others.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hate to interrupt my colleague, but there is no quorum in the House. Could you check for that, please?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary Leadston): I would ask to check if there is a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: Just to continue and take advantage of the extra few minutes left, the program so far has brought into the government coffers some $225 million, but it's not consenting seniors who have been saying, "Yes, we are willing to pay, voluntarily and generously."

It is important that the government learn the lesson of today and make whatever adjustments are necessary to the program itself. It is not the program, that is, the $2 or the $6; it is the problems associated with the entire system. For the benefit of the minister -- I'm pleased he's here today -- it is the wide range of problems associated with the system.

With the copayments and user fee payments, we are forcing many seniors to go without proper medication, and this has many other consequences. We are forcing many seniors to go without any proper medication whatsoever.

This user fee on drugs also penalizes others. It is not the $2 fee alone. It also prevents many non-seniors from obtaining the necessary drugs as prescribed by their doctors. We have many cases where customers go to a pharmacy and say: "I can only afford one drug. Which one is the most essential one for me?"

This will be an expense on the health care system as well, because what's going to happen now? The side-effects of not taking the proper and necessary drugs will cause other problems for many seniors.

Many other seniors are affected by user fees: people in long-term care, nursing homes and so forth. Those people are being forced to pay a copayment, again because of the government's desire --

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): Elinor Caplin brought in the biggest copayments in the province's history.

Mr Sergio: I can appreciate what the minister is saying. I can see that he's agreeing. He's recognizing that the government has made a mistake. I hope he has listened to the people who came here to Queen's Park. I hope he listens to what the opposition is saying. The way he has made adjustments today, I hope he will consider sitting down with those groups that are saying: "We have a concern about the system.

We have a problem making the copayment and we want to sit with you." If the minister had really sat down with those groups and listened to them, he would have gone to his caucus, he would have gone to the Premier and said: "Premier, we have a problem with seniors. What we have done is totally unfair and we have to reconsider."

This is the message I'm leaving with the Premier and the minister today, to go back, meet with the seniors and make those necessary changes so the system will be fairer and acceptable, because indeed our seniors deserve nothing less.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I'm pleased to support the resolution we're dealing with here today. I want to comment generally about the government and what they're doing to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I would remind you that we dealt just a couple of days ago, last week in fact, with injured workers. You remember what this government is doing to injured workers. You remember that this government talks about an unfunded liability, and as a result of that unfunded liability they give money back to the employers by whacking injured workers, by taking away from the injured workers so they can deal with their unfunded liability, while at the same time giving the employer a hell of a big $6-billion break.

I try to think about the ethos of this government, trying to understand their value system. As I look at everything they're doing, I understand the values of this party. As I look at what they do to injured workers, I say obviously the values we have here in the social democratic party are not shared by the group across from me, because we would never dream of making the kinds of cuts, the kinds of assaults against injured workers that this government is about to do and is doing, to workers in general and to injured workers in particular.

Hon Mr Jackson: They're getting a raise.

Mr Marchese: The ethos of this government clearly is not on the side of the little guy. It's not on the side of those who are very vulnerable and most vulnerable.

I think I heard Minister Jackson say they're getting a raise. Injured workers are getting a raise, Cam?

Hon Mr Jackson: Yes.

Mr Marchese: I don't understand. You whack injured workers, because instead of 90% of net pay they get 85% of net pay. He calls that an increase. Do you understand that? I raise this issue because it's important for those viewing this to understand the mathematics of this government. They're about to get 85% of net instead of 90%. Cam Jackson, the minister, says that's a raise.

I don't get it, but when he has an opportunity to speak about this, he will be able to tell us how he finds that people out there, injured workers in particular, are going to benefit from what this government is doing to you -- not for you, because this government doesn't do anything for you; it does it to you. That's why you need to be able to place yourself vis-à-vis this government, because many people are, as I see it, victims of this government.

We move from injured workers, because we already dealt with this issue last week in the debates, into this piece of the resolution, so as to get a good sense of how these fine, honourable people on the other side consult as they bring about new policy changes.

Minister Jackson, in the one-page statement he presented today, says on several occasions how proud he is and how they will continue to consult seniors. He makes it appear that when they imposed a $100 annual fee on those earning $16,000 and up, somehow they consulted with seniors, or that when they imposed a $2 user fee for anyone earning $16,000 and less, somehow they were consulted by M. Jackson or these other honorables across the way from me.

There is no consultation going on. There is never any consultation that I can see, because we would know. The government speaks the line about consulting, but they don't consult. If they did, the seniors would have been able to tell them: "Leave the present system in place. We don't want to be whacked by you fine Tories again.

Why would you whack us, seniors who have gone through our lives working hard at many different jobs" -- in fact, many women carry two jobs, in the workplace and at home -- "and when we get to an age where our earning power is less than it used to be, all of a sudden you say we've got to pay a $2 prescription fee every time we go to the doctor and the doctor signs one of those prescriptions." You go to the pharmacist and he is very happy to fill it for you because he gets a dispensing fee, so he's okay, he's happy, but the senior is not happy.

If you had consulted them, they would have told you they are not happy. Many of them, I suspect, are telling you now. Those who have the time, the energy and the emotional strength to come and look you in the eye will tell you that this is something they don't accept and that this is a burden to them. And it is a burden. You can dismiss it all you want. You can say whatever it is you say to seniors, but it's a user fee, and a hefty one at that. This is contrary to the promise of M. Harris and the lot of you who went around prior to the election saying there would not be any user fees.

It's a funny thing, because you have the Minister of Health and M. Jackson and others saying this is not a user fee. Euphemistically, this is what they call a copayment, as if somehow to relieve people of that thing that is a burden to them. That's the user fee, the cost that is applied to the prescription whenever you go to the doctor. It's a user fee.

M. Wilson says, "No, under the Canada Health Act they say this is not a user fee." The Minister of Health can say all he wants, but every senior who goes to a pharmacy knows if they make $16,000 and over and they pay that $100, that's a charge; they've got to pay for that. Don't they say that, Len, in your part of the world? Isn't that a cost to the people you represent? Of course it's a cost to them. Isn't it a cost to the seniors in the ridings of those Tory individuals across from me? I would think it's a cost to them.

Whether they're seniors who are Tories or seniors who are Liberals or seniors who are NDPers or seniors who don't even vote, it's a cost to them. We can't escape it. No matter how M. Wilson tries to embellish or camouflage