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

April 29, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L004a - Wed 29 Apr 1998 / Mer 29 Avr 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

HATE CRIMES

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

HATE CRIMES

SUDBURY NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

AGRICULTURE DAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAXPAYERS SAVINGS MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS AFIN QUE LES CONTRIBUABLES RÉALISENT DES ÉCONOMIES FISCALES (RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON)

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LONG-TERM CARE

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

EDUCATION FINANCING

LONG-TERM CARE

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

ROAD SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

RURAL PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

PETITIONS

ABORTION

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

CONDITION D'UNE ÉCOLE

ABORTION

ABORTION

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ABORTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Today in Ottawa-Carleton parents learned the real impact of the Mike Harris revolution. They learned that, thanks to Mike Harris's new funding formula, their children would lose classroom help that just yesterday the government said it would provide. Well, actions speak louder than words.

Because of this government's education funding formula, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board finds itself some $37 million short. To make this up, it will lay off over 600 employees. Unfortunately, this will include school psychologists, social workers and speech and language pathologists, who help children with learning disabilities. As a matter of fact, one in four of these school psychologists and speech and language pathologists will be losing their job.

That means we will see, along with the other cuts the school board will be dealing with, some $16 million cut from special education, from kids who need it most to succeed in school, in the name of the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution.

And that's not all. Over the next four years, the board will have to cut its programs by over $87 million, looking at the possibility of school closures.

I just want to make sure that everyone understands the consequences of this Mike Harris revolution. Actions do speak louder than words, and unfortunately, children who have real learning needs will find that these needs will not be met. This will be thanks to a government that's intent on finding funds for an income tax cut.

HATE CRIMES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): People in Niagara region and indeed across this country are shocked, outraged, disturbed and extremely angry about what has now been two violent desecrations, attacks, on Niagara's Jewish cemetery in St Catharines.

This conduct, these acts, are the most vile and despicable things that could be done in any society anywhere in this world. They're crimes not only against the Criminal Code but against any sense of morality, and the perpetrators of these crimes have no place in our communities or in our society.

The Niagara Regional Police are tenaciously investigating these acts. I tell you that the people of Niagara and other Canadians condemn this conduct.

I appeal to this government to ensure that the Niagara Regional Police have every possible resource put at their disposal during the course of their investigation and that this Attorney General monitor the prosecution of these charges to ensure that the prosecution occurs without compromise, without concession, and that when convictions are obtained the maximum penalty available under law be imposed upon the despicable perpetrators of this unhuman and totally intolerable conduct.

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I recently had the opportunity to meet with business operators in my riding. The message is clear: We need skilled workers from our education system.

This supports the Ministry of Education's new science and technology curriculum and the updating of apprenticeship programs. There are satisfying and high-paying jobs in the trades, and we must make students aware of this.

When visiting Barrie Welding with Minister Tsubouchi, President Brian Smith expressed frustration at the shortage of skilled millwrights, welder-fitters and computer numerical control technicians. In fact, Barrie Welding has three machines sitting idle on some shifts due to the lack of skilled workers.

Mr Smith says children have been graduating from our schools without basic technical knowledge. Colleges have not kept up with employers' demands.

The Industrial Research and Development Institute in Midland is a fine example of the partnerships which need to be established between industry, research and education. The founders of this training centre developed the concept for an educational and technical institute to support Canada's manufacturers. IRDI operates through memberships with manufacturers and in partnership with Georgian College.

We must expand our science, technology and research training to establish our place in the world market and create greater employment opportunities for Ontario's children.

FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Since 1995, it is estimated that over six million people of North Korea's 23 million people have died of starvation. The hardest hit are the children and the elderly. The German Red Cross estimates that as many as 10,000 children have been dying each month. This number includes 45% of all children under age six. On top of this, 74% of the elderly over the age of 60 have died under horrendous conditions, where they receive such meagre amounts of food that it results in many being almost blind from malnutrition and being unable to walk.

On Monday of this week, a group of prominent Canadians have launched a campaign from Toronto to make people aware of the starvation caused by the widespread famine in North Korea. Led by Dr Joseph Wong, Canadians for North Korean Famine Relief declared April 27 a day of action and thenceforth has determined to collect funds for foods to be sent to those most in need and to make Ontarians aware of this very serious situation. The Canadian federal government has agreed to donate $4 for every dollar raised by this group for such an important cause.

We in the Ontario Liberal Party applaud Dr Wong and his group for their efforts on behalf of all North Koreans, especially the children and the elderly. We express our sympathy to the people of North Korea. People all over the world have been shocked by the miserable conditions created by this unprecedented tragedy.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Last night we witnessed just how caring and compassionate a Liberal government can be.

In what can only be described as a shameful display, Liberal MP after Liberal MP voted to deny compensation to innocent hepatitis C victims infected before 1986. What should have been a humanitarian debate turned into a loyalty contest directed by a Prime Minister determined to show that he could rally the troops when he needed to. This is from a government that wants to convince people it can be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to the protection of public health.

After the vote Health Minister Allan Rock declared, "This file is closed." This is an insult to tens of thousands of people and their families for whom the file will never be closed. Their suffering will continue.

The issue here should not have been whether some were lucky enough to be infected after a certain date, the issue is whether part of a large group of innocent, suffering people receive help from their own government.

There are many examples where the government has stepped in to help when they didn't have the legal obligation to do so. This winter's ice storm is a recent example. The Dionne sisters is another. We aren't talking about property damage here, though: we're talking about people's health.

My question is: Why would the Liberals work so hard with the Mike Harris government to ensure that innocent hepatitis C victims are denied compensation, are denied the justice and the compassion they deserve?

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in the House to advise the members of the official opening of the new learning resource centre at Sir Sandford Fleming College in Peterborough. This resource centre is a wonderful example of how governments and private enterprise can work together.

The Bell Institute for Learning Design was developed with the assistance of Bell Canada, the Ministry of Education and Training, Human Resources Development Canada and the Friends of Sir Sandford Fleming Foundation, with donations from individuals and corporations.

This facility combines student assessment, support services and a number of educational technologies in one facility. It is a showcase for the demonstration of new and emerging educational technologies such as videoconferencing, audio and audiographic conferencing. College staff, teachers and trainers in the public and private sector can now access curriculum and learning design services as well as the state-of-the-art computing facilities for the development of technology-based materials.

This is a fine example of what the Ministry of Education and Training is doing. By working in partnership with these other organizations and by making a contribution of $3.5 million to aid in construction costs, we are seeing the initial stages of a strategic planning initiative to be developed under Sir Sandford's master academic framework.

I wish to congratulate all those involved in producing such a fine facility.

HATE CRIMES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We've had a very sad event in our community over the past few days. The headline in our local newspaper reads, "Hate in a Cemetery." It describes people who are desecrating gravestones of people who are of the Jewish faith, on an ongoing basis unfortunately. The motivation is clearly that of hate and nothing else.

An arrest has been made in one particular case, but that has not stopped what has happened. Gravestones again, on a second occasion, have been pushed over. Members of the Jewish community in St Catharines are in great anguish over this, as all people should be, not only in our community but across our province and our country and our world.

Let me read from a story in the Standard which says the following:

"Members of the Jewish community in St Catharines will be celebrating Israel's 50th birthday under a dark cloud after 43 headstones in their cemetery were vandalized over the weekend in what police are treating as a hate crime.

"`We'll be pursuing this as a hate crime and we'll be asking the crown attorney to seek a higher sentence,' said Superintendent K.R. Davidson of Niagara Regional Police.

"`This is a hideous attack on the community, not just the Jewish community but the community as a whole.'"

I think all of us in this House would agree with that sentiment.

SUDBURY NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Today the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory will be officially opened in our community. In recognition of this historic event, scientists and representatives of industry and governments from Canada, the United States and Great Britain have gathered in Sudbury to participate in the opening ceremonies. We are particularly proud that Dr Stephen Hawking from Cambridge University was able to come to the community to join the celebrations.

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is a scientific and engineering achievement. As a scientific project, the observatory will be used to detect neutrinos, which are thought to be basic building blocks of matter. They are produced by nuclear reactions which power the sun, and their detection in the heavy water stored in the observatory will reveal information about the sun and stars which can't be obtained by any other means.

As an engineering feat, the laboratory, which is the size of a 10-storey building, is located at the 6,800-foot level of Creighton Mine. The Plexiglas sphere holding the heavy water is the largest ever built, and there are 9,500 ultrasensitive light sensors in place to observe the faint bursts of light produced by the neutrinos.

The project has been under construction since 1990 and has involved over 70 scientists from 12 institutions in Canada, the US and the UK. The funding came from a consortium of governments, government agencies and industrial supporters in Canada, the US and the UK.

This neutrino observatory is the result of hard work and collaboration by many individuals over a number of years, and it's a credit to them and their dedication that it is officially opening today.

AGRICULTURE DAY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): It is my pleasure to rise in the Legislature today in recognition of what I believe is one of the most important days of the year. Today is the day in which we celebrate the hard work and dedication of the many people in Ontario who put food on our tables. Today is Agriculture Day, and we have had many representatives from different commodity groups with us, some in the gallery today, to help us recognize that good things grow in Ontario.

Agriculture is the second largest industry in Ontario and it is a major force driving the economy. It is the agriculture sector that provides the fuel that drives the engine of Ontario forward. I am proud to say that the farmers I represent in Perth county are among the best producers in Ontario.

Ontario's agrifood industry is a world leader. The tremendous contribution which this sector makes to the provincial economy, some $25 billion every year, is a key factor in positioning Ontario as one of the best places in North America to live, work and raise a family. In the months and years ahead, our agrifood industry will continue to be a key to our success. We must ensure that the agriculture industry continues to look to the future, to remain world leaders in quality and highly competitive in both domestic and global markets.

Mr Speaker, I hope you and the other members of the Legislature will join with me today in celebration of the accomplishments of the agriculture industry in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAXPAYERS SAVINGS MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS AFIN QUE LES CONTRIBUABLES RÉALISENT DES ÉCONOMIES FISCALES (RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON)

Mr Guzzo moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide Savings to Taxpayers in the Ottawa-Carleton Region / Projet de loi 9, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités afin de faire réaliser des économies fiscales aux contribuables de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Any brief comments?

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): The bill provides for a restructuring of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and its constituent municipalities by agreement of the affected municipalities or by order of a restructuring commission. The bill further provides that the restructuring shall occur on or before November 1, 2000.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move without notice a motion respecting the order of routine proceedings on Thursday, April 30, 1998.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: If I could, I would like to thank the opposition parties for their cooperation in this matter. We are seeking to change the order tomorrow so that many members of the Legislature will have the opportunity to be here for question period but be able to attend the funeral of the spouse of one our members. I am of course referring to Mr Bassett's recent death.

I move that, notwithstanding standing order 30(a), on Thursday, April 30, 1998, the routine proceedings before the orders of the day shall be as follows: oral questions, introduction of bills, statements by the ministry and responses, members' statements, reports by committees, motions, deferred votes, and petitions.

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

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would be willing to give consent for the remainder of the session for that to be the order, if the government House leader would like it to be the case.

The Speaker: That's something you can have a chit-chat about later, I suppose.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LONG-TERM CARE

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I rise today to inform the House of an announcement made this morning by the Premier and myself on the most significant expansion of health services ever made in the history of our province. This announcement of $1.2 billion in long-term care and community funds will have a very positive and wide-ranging impact on our health system and improve the quality of life for all Ontarians. It will enable us to build a health system that will meet the evolving health needs of Ontarians today and into the future.

For over two and a half years, our government has moved forward with changes to build a better health system for the people of Ontario, one that finally responds to the needs of our changing, growing and aging population, a health system that will provide improved access to high quality services.

Until today's investment, there had not been an announcement regarding new long-term-care beds since 1988.

Today's announcement moves forward and it complements the hospital reforms that are being carried out as recommended by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Today's investment moves us towards a comprehensive, coordinated health system that provides a continuum of care for people consistent with their needs. Meeting the needs of our seniors means that high-quality long-term care must be available. People over the age of 75 are the largest users of long-term-care services, and Ontario's over-75 population is expected to increase by 35% between 1998 and 2008.

This historic investment today will add 20,000 new beds for nursing homes and homes for the aged over eight years, and it will allow for the renovation of an additional 13,000 more beds in order that they can meet the new design standards which will contribute to a more home-like environment in our long-term-care facilities.

The investment also means improved access to community-based services for an additional 100,000 Ontarians in the areas of nursing, homemaking, therapy, Meals on Wheels, supportive housing and services for the physically disabled. This investment will also mean the creation of 70,000 new jobs, 27,500 of which are new front-line health jobs, including 7,900 positions for nurses and 11,350 jobs for homemakers and home care aides; and 42,500 of these jobs are construction jobs which will be available on sites throughout Ontario because these 20,000 new beds will result in the establishment of approximately 175 new facilities.

This new funding, this new level of support, will mean that more people are able to leave hospitals and receive care in their own homes. There will be less pressure on families, particularly women, who are the primary caregivers. More children with special needs will be supported at school and in their homes. These measures will also take the pressure off emergency rooms and hospital beds and significantly reduce waiting lists for nursing homes and homes for the aged.

In conclusion, today our government has taken significant steps forward to improve health services for the people of this province. Today is an exciting and important day, as we are ensuring that high-quality health services will be there for Ontarians at every stage of their lives. Today I am proud to say we are investing in people and we are building a health system that is consistent with the needs of people today and those in the 21st century.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is indeed unfortunate we don't have the Premier here to stand behind some of the words that he said earlier today about this particular announcement. This is supposed to be Mike Harris's last-minute conversion to health care; instead of cutting and slashing and taking away, as Mike Harris has done year after year, suddenly we're to believe that something is going to change and patients will be better off.

Even if this announcement had been made two and a half years ago when we might have believed that the government then had a plan for health care, we might at that time have conceded that. Instead we have an announcement over eight years. This government proposes to restore over eight long years an amount of money that is less than they have taken out of hospitals over the last two. These guys know how to cut, but when it comes to making patients the focus, being able to actually look after them, this government has an immense amount of trouble.

When the government gets into public relations mode like this, when they import the people to applaud as they did this morning at the announcement, they've got to know that there are patients out there who aren't being fooled, patients who are staring up at the ceilings in emergency room hallways, who are sitting on waiting lists for surgery, who haven't got anything to look forward to from this government except less nursing care and less access to their doctors.

This government tries to portray the beds that are being announced today as if they're brand-new; they're not. They're actually taking 3,500 beds out of chronic care hospitals where people get decent care from registered nurses, and what they're going to be offered instead is discount health care. That's what this government stands for. Instead of actually dealing with people in the way that they deserve, we have this late announcement, timed not to provide a single bed by the time of the next election, and the people of Ontario need to hold this government to account. This announcement, if it is to be believed, would amount to about $150 million a year.

Let's look back at this government's record. In 1996 they announced $170 million would be going into long-term care and all the back bench got up and applauded. What happened in 1996-97? Not one dollar got put into long-term care. In fact, as an insult to the seniors and the disabled of this province who need this care, $5 million less was actually spent by this government.

We know that this late, last-minute conversion of Mike Harris to community health care is probably not worth the paper it's printed on today. But if we look at what this government is talking about in terms of what it wants to do for people, let's just look at what the government says it might do for -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, order. Just a minute. Government members, I think they allowed the minister to make the statement in relative calm. I would ask the government members to come to order and allow the response to be made in the same relative calm.

Mr Kennedy: I can understand why they're agitated. They've got to take this weak, watered-down package, which obviously lost out to everything else that must have come to caucus, bring it back to their communities and try and tell the seniors currently in chronic care beds why they're going to be ripped out of them and put into inferior facilities, try and tell people why this government, this Premier and this minister, didn't have the gumption, the courage to stand up and say: "Here are the standards we're going to provide. We're going to make sure that you can get the same care you're getting today when we put you in those facilities." The people being moved into these -

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): You sit down.

The Speaker: Etobicoke-Humber, come to order.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): He's out of control, Mr Speaker. He's out of control over there.

Mr Kennedy: Again, I understand the disappointment being expressed by the members opposite today in this announcement. It's well founded because there isn't proper protection for people today, not in the nursing homes, not in home care. We're going to have many more sick people, people who are leaving hospitals sicker and quicker. They're not going to be protected. You're not providing them with a standard of care.

What you are doing is opening up an immense bias for for-profit Americanized health care. You're making the nursing homes and the non-profit facilities pay for their facilities. You're opening up that bias. We've already seen that happen in terms of your taking the whole home care sector, the health care that people used to be able to get from nurses, and making it happen in the for-profit sector. You're making the standards go down, the nurses are being paid less and they're leaving the sector. That's what you're doing: 100% of home care is being privatized by your government this summer, and this just sets that up.

The disappointment that must be felt by sick patients today - you had a chance to stand up for sick people in Ontario. Minister, you blew it.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I would say to the minister that pride goes before a fall. The kind of pride and hubris that have been expressed today by you and by the Premier around this announcement are going to be found out by people as they see what really happened.

People in Ontario are not as foolish as your government seems to think they are. People in Ontario know that the reason the need out there in the community has grown so great for the dollars you are announcing over eight years is that in the last three years you've shut down so many possibilities for them to get care in the hospitals under the Canada Health Act, where they're entitled, no matter what money they have, to a quality standard of care.

You, by your budget cuts to hospitals, have forced people out of those standardized, protected places into their communities, where you have not provided the care they needed and, as my colleague in the Liberal Party pointed out, announced money and then actually flowed less.

Those of us in this Legislature who get a chance to look at the estimates and then at the end of the year, about 18 months later, actually, look at public accounts, know the smoke and mirrors that your government is using to try and convince the people of Ontario that you're providing services to them.

This announcement makes history only because, I don't think, ever in history before have we seen a government with the nerve to make this kind of fanfare over an announcement that has absolutely no timetable whereby the money is actually going to be flowed, has no mention of the standards under which the money is going to be flowed, has absolutely no commitment to meet the immediate needs that have been identified in absolutely every community, to a community out there that has seen you stop the dollars from flowing that had been previously announced.

You say there was no improvement in long-term care. You know very well, as does your government, that there was a plan in place to revitalize long-term care across the province. You say we didn't open any beds, but in Windsor we had a wonderful facility that we funded and opened that combined chronic care and long-term care in a new mode of care that you now have taken dollars out of.

Quite frankly, Minister, you are trying to fool the people of Ontario that there's salvation coming some time in the future when in fact they're experiencing purgatory, if not hell, in the overcrowded corridors of our hospitals.

What is more, what you are doing is moving people from the publicly funded, publicly accountable health care service into the privatized area - privatized within the home, privatized within the community - in a way in which we know you will encourage large corporations to take on that care. We've all observed what you did with the CCACs - putting things out to tender, basing it on a market basis - which means that our public health care dollars, my tax dollars, are going to end up in the pockets of big corporate managers, big corporate companies, not put into the care of my community.

I resent that and I think the people of Ontario will resent that as they watch you encouraging that privatization.

Minister, if you're going to do this and if you expect to get any credit for this announcement today, we are going to hold you to opening up about the actual timetable on which these dollars are going to be presented. We are going to require you to be much more accountable than this government has been about its announcements, which never see dollars flowing into the community.

We are going to be watching very carefully the efforts you make to ensure that standards of care are ensuring the continuum of care that you say you're guaranteeing to people out there in the community, because that is not what is happening under your market picture of long-term care out there under the CCAC. We are seeing that care being driven down every day.

Your credibility, Minister, is going to depend on your announcing in a very clear way exactly when and exactly how these dollars are going to make health care better in Ontario.

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 1997 annual report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, I want to ask you about your announcement today in terms of its impact on people.

You participated with some fanfare today, saying that there would be thousands of new beds, saying that this was a big milestone, an improvement. What you didn't say is that you're putting money ahead of patients.

Today you pay approximately $234 or $250 per day for very sick and ill patients in chronic care facilities. In this brave new world of yours, you'll pay $60 a day for patients in long-term care facilities.

Minister, why are you taking away the protections that those patients in chronic care facilities have today under the Canada Health Act and under the Public Hospitals Act? Why are you replacing 3,500 chronic care beds and the sick people who are in them? Why are you transferring them to facilities which won't provide them with those standards and a good quality of care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As you know, the hospital association has indicated that many of the individuals who are presently being accommodated within the chronic care hospitals could appropriately be accommodated within the long-term-care sector, because what we see today in the long-term-care facilities is individuals who are older and frailer than ever before.

What our government has committed to do to ensure that the nursing and the personal care services are going to be provided is that each year there is an assessment made of individuals in the long-term-care facilities and the appropriate level of funding is provided. All people in those facilities will be funded according to the level of care that is consistent for their needs.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, in a chronic care hospital today there is a team approach that provides for that patient. There are physiotherapists, occupational therapists, registered nurses who are making sure that when a person has a degenerative disease - they start to lose function, like Gladys Conroy at Runnymede Hospital, whom you want to remove from Runnymede Hospital. When she is getting the care that she's getting there today for her Alzheimer's and advanced dementia, she is treated like a person, she is treated like an individual with the highest quality of life possible.

It is nothing against long-term-care facilities to say that for the fewer dollars that you're going to give them, they're not going to be able to provide that same level of care to Gladys or to hundreds of others.

You've done it in Thunder Bay, where people had to leave chronic care facilities already. You've done it in other parts of the province. Minister, will you rethink this? Will you come up with a blended formula? I ask you very specifically, will Gladys Conroy and the other people in chronic care beds be guaranteed the same or better level of care in the future? Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important to recognize that our government has very carefully taken a look at the emerging needs of seniors in this province and we have made every effort to ensure that the needs of those individuals are going to be addressed, that the appropriate level of nursing and personal care will continue to be provided. As I have just said, an annual assessment is made and then the appropriate level of funding and the appropriate level of care is provided to each and every individual in this province.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, if you can't say to Gladys Conroy that she's going to get the same level of care, then all the rest of those words don't mean anything. If you can't tell Mrs Carley Sala, her daughter, who is worried - she is saying she can't understand why you're evicting her mother from her home at Runnymede Hospital, why you're doing that in pursuit of an area that we really haven't developed standards for.

You say it'll be assessed. By whose standards? Minister, it's no longer under the Public Hospitals Act, it's no longer under the Canada Health Act when a patient leaves those hospitals. Will you be adopting standards? Will you put these patients under the Canada Health Act? Will you make sure that Gladys and the other people in those 3,500 beds you are erasing get exactly the same care today and in the future that they have been getting?

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today the Ontario child advocate released a very remarkable report that documents the voices of children in Ontario's care. What is so remarkable about the report is that there is nothing new in it. Everything that was released today itemizes the leaks in your system that you have not yet addressed and you've been at it for three years. Minister, after this most damaging report, released this morning, I would like your accounting of what you are doing for the children in your care here in Ontario.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): We were quite pleased to receive the advocate's report. As she notes in her introductory comments, for a decade kids in care have been telling adults about these same experiences, and the honourable member is quite right that these problems have existed for many years in the system.

What we are doing through our reform initiatives in the justice area, what my colleague Mr Runciman has been doing through strict discipline facilities, what we've been doing through child welfare reforms, what we've been doing with our reform initiative called Making Services Work for People, which is shifting resources to more intervention and prevention programs, all of those reforms, which are ongoing, are designed to address specifically the kinds of problems the advocate has flagged.

Mrs Pupatello: I would like you to review all the documents on my desk now. These are all reports that have a very common theme, and the common theme in all these reports dictates that there is a leak in your system that you have not addressed, and you've been at it for three years. In those three years you have not caused reform, you have not reallocated. You've cut $17 million from the operating budgets of children's aid, you've cut $14 million from services that deal with children, $8 million from children's mental health agencies right across the province. That is not reallocation, that is letting those children slip right through the cracks.

We address that in the policy we forwarded to you. It's called First Steps. We are asking you to implement these steps so we can have a seamless system. We haven't had your official response to First Steps. We want you to implement it now, not wait until we get the opportunity to do so.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, I realize that the communication between her office and the leader's office may not be very good, but I did respond to First Steps. I sent a letter to the Leader of the Opposition outlining many of the initiatives he recommended that we indeed agree with and are proceeding with.

I would also like to point out to the honourable member that the advocate, who made many strong recommendations for change, which we are examining, and we are acting on many, also spoke of the success stories she heard when she talked to people. The children she talked to spoke of special places where special people help to mould their identity in positive and healthy ways. There were many youth in environments that were conducive to healing, in her words.

She talks about the care system becoming too rigid and institutionalized, which is one of the reasons our Making Services Work for People framework, using community agencies with the expertise, is bringing forward those recommendations so children don't fall through the cracks.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, you don't even pay your bills. The children's aid societies are in debt. You are not paying their contingency funding. You have cut services that already exist, with lineups of children waiting for intervention. That is what your record is for children in Ontario. The child advocate this morning released information that tells you that while you might call for more studies, when you say "studies" you mean stall, because what children need today is action from your government. We are asking you for action, not for letters back on our policy, but implementing what we are asking you to do. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I can understand why, after over 10 years of the problems existing in the system, the honourable member may have some difficulty recognizing the steps we are taking, but let me talk to you about some of those steps.

The reform in child welfare, to change the legislation, to improve the training for front-line workers, to put more money into the system - dollars that are actually out there hiring more people.

We're spending more money on the child welfare system than any government has spent before: the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program that is supporting 5,000 high-risk families in this province; the Healthy Babies program that is supporting 9,000 mothers with home visits, high-risk families, to get the support they need; the $20 million for speech and language that is virtually doubling the number of preschoolers who will receive speech and language support; the 39,000 more children who got child nutrition programs. There are many reforms. We know that we need to do more.

That's why I welcome the recommendations from the child advocate.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Attorney General. Bob Runciman did the right thing a couple of days ago when he resigned and accepted his part of the responsibility for the apparent breach of our criminal laws in Thursday's throne speech. Even your own backbenchers are now publicly recognizing that Mr Runciman did not act alone in this apparent breach. It took you five days to discharge your responsibilities as Attorney General of this province and call for the RCMP to carry on an investigation.

What I want to ask you about is what happened during that intervening period of time, particularly with respect to evidence that might be necessary in this investigation, both in the office of the Solicitor General and particularly in the Premier's office. What assurances can you give us that steps were taken to secure potential evidence, particularly in the Premier's office, during those five days that have intervened since the throne speech?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As I indicated yesterday, the matter has been referred to the RCMP as a result of the allegations that have been made. They are going to perform an investigation and proceed appropriately, and I have no comments to make.

Mr Silipo: Attorney General, it took you five days to carry out your responsibilities and to ask for that investigation. You hid for five days and your Premier hid for five days behind that apparent investigation, which hasn't yet started, and you have not in the meantime given us any assurances that any potential evidence that the investigation would have to look at has not been altered during that time. So I want to ask you again, how can we believe and how do you expect the people to believe that nothing has happened, in the Premier's office particularly, to change or tamper with any evidence that the RCMP might need in their investigation?

Hon Mr Harnick: All of these issues are subject to the investigation that the RCMP will be performing. The Premier has indicated very quickly and very straightforwardly that there will be full cooperation, and it would be inappropriate to make any further comments in light of the police investigation.

Mr Silipo: Let me remind the Attorney General of something that Mr Runciman said back in 1992: "...a chief adviser to himself coming into the office only a few hours before an official police investigation is launched, in the dead of night on a Sunday night, to remove files.... I like to think that if my executive assistant, for example, was accused of criminal activity, I would secure my office. I wouldn't allow my executive assistant to go in and rifle the files a few hours before the police launch their official investigation."

I ask you again, what individuals were allowed continued access to the Office of the Premier, the office of the Solicitor General, and why was there not security placed on those offices in order to protect evidence that the RCMP might need in their investigation?

Hon Mr Harnick: Again, I can't comment about the parallels to different situations that the member puts, but certainly the RCMP have been notified. There is an investigation ongoing, and any comment would be inappropriate.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, I want to go back to the Attorney General and I want to ask him about this investigation and what he did and didn't do, because as I said before, it took him five days to discharge his responsibilities, the responsibilities that he knows he has as the Attorney General, aside from being a member of cabinet, as the chief law officer of the province. It took him five days to make the request, to follow the protocol that we understand is there in the ministry, and quite frankly, we still don't know what the scope of that is, even after those five days.

Will you tell us now what the scope of the investigation is that you have requested? Have you made sure, for example, in your request to the RCMP that they will have complete access to whatever offices they wish, whatever people they wish and be able to carry out their responsibilities to the fullest?

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly we've indicated before that full cooperation will be given. This is an issue that has been in the hands of the assistant deputy minister responsible for criminal law since last Thursday. It is an issue that is being dealt with according to a protocol as is appropriate.

Mr Silipo: Yesterday my leader asked the Attorney General if, among other things, he would release a copy of the protocol that exists in the Ministry of the Attorney General. I want to ask the minister again whether he will release that information and whether he will also release to us that letter - because we understand that the correspondence between the ADM and the RCMP cannot be released unless, of course, the minister wants it to be released - so we can see ourselves what the nature of the request for the investigation contains. Will the minister agree to release those two pieces of information to the House?

Hon Mr Harnick: I have tried to explain to the member that this is a matter that is under the control completely of the assistant deputy minister for criminal law. It is not a matter that I am involved with; it is not a matter that I in any way have any connection to or direction over. It is appropriate to be in the hands of the assistant deputy minister for criminal law, as the protocol states, and that's what is being done.

Mr Silipo: I would have thought that a simple "Yes" to my request for the protocol then would have been okay. What does the minister have to worry about in not wanting to release the protocol?

Again I say to the Attorney General particularly that maybe he doesn't fully appreciate that what we have here is a serious apparent breach of the criminal laws of the country. This isn't a minor offence. The people who are under investigation include ministers in this government, include people in the Office of the Premier, and there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

We want to be sure that given particularly that it has taken five days for the Attorney General to discharge his responsibilities and that he did that only after our leader requested that he do that and made the request for an investigation directly to the RCMP - we want to make sure that he now carries on his responsibilities. Again I ask the minister, will he release the protocol and will he release the letter that went from his ministry to the RCMP?

Hon Mr Harnick: Again I will say to the member that this is not a matter that I have any connection to or direction of. It is fully and firmly within the jurisdiction of the assistant deputy minister, as is appropriate, and that is the proper way to deal with this issue.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Today the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario issued a report for 1997. It is clearly the most damning report on performance of an environment minister in the history of this province. The report is clear: You have failed miserably; you have let down the people of Ontario. Minister, you have not protected the health and environment of Ontarians.

The report shows that you have unenforceable guidelines for air quality and that they're regularly exceeded in places like Windsor, Toronto, Hamilton, Sault Ste Marie and London. By your own admission, 1,800 people a year die in Ontario due to bad air. The report today unveils that by the year 2015, with all the steps you have taken, the air quality in this province will be worse than it is today. That means another 18 years of 1,800 deaths a year as a result of your inaction.

The commissioner stated that air quality information is not being collected, that your ministry does not track industrial discharge into the waterways. Minister, you have failed. Today will you do the best thing for the province of Ontario and the environment and resign, and let someone else who will be able to do the job take over your ministry?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): The Environmental Commissioner issued her report today. I intend to take it seriously and to look at her recommendations. I think it's most interesting that with regard to her previous recommendations some time ago, last year, we have been able to respond to I think 18 of her 25 recommendations.

We will continue to look at the report. I have, of course, not had the opportunity to look at it in detail, and I will look at her constructive suggestions in that light.

Mr Agostino: Minister, I am sure you have been briefed on this. There is nothing in there that should give you any confidence in your ability to continue as Minister of Environment. It is clear you have failed the people of Ontario miserably.

Let me focus on Plastimet. We've asked for a public inquiry. Today the commissioner has joined that call. The commissioner has asked, as well as the opposition parties, for a public inquiry into Plastimet. She said that your inaction, as a result of not looking closely enough at the need for a certificate when you knew there was no market for plastic recycling in Ontario, may have caused that fire. She said that you have taken no action to address the fire marshal's recommendations that were addressed after the fire.

Minister, you have given us no explanation why you won't call a public inquiry. You have not given us an explanation why a certificate was not issued that could have prevented that fire. You have let the people of Hamilton down. Once again you have shown the incompetence of your ministry and your own performance, the commissioner stated today.

Again, in view of the request of the Environmental Commissioner, will you today call for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I indicated before, I guess, the question is to look at this particular report. I did have a look at the report with regard to the Plastimet fire situation, and very few of the allegations or statements made by the member opposite are included in the report.

Mr Agostino: Read the report.

Hon Mr Sterling: I have read the report in that regard, and what is purported by the member is in fact not in the report.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is to the Minister of Environment. The Environmental Commissioner today issued a devastating report that said, "Environmental health continues to be a very low priority for the ministers of this province."

Minister, what the commissioner is saying, albeit it rather politely, is that our health is going to get worse and is more at risk if you don't clean up your act and if you don't clean it up now.

Last year you announced the beginning of the Drive Clean program after your Premier said publicly that that was one of the biggest failures of your government. Now we hear that it's going to be delayed for another year.

You yourself admitted that up to 1,800 people a year die as a result of smog. You are committing some of these people to a death sentence because you are not cleaning up your act, you're not getting this program started, and in fact you're relying on volunteers to clean up the air in general.

Will you reverse that position today and get this program up and running now, and will you bring forward -

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Riverdale. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: As members know, we introduced the Drive Clean program, which we are working and negotiating with the private sector to provide at the present time. This program will be the most complex, the largest, most widely used program of any state or province in North America. It is a very, very thorough program where we will get reductions.

I do not apologize for that. It is a very expensive program. It is $70 million a year, which in effect is increasing the budget of the Ministry of Environment by that amount through an indirect method. I think it's a terrific program and the people of Ontario are right behind it.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Minister, I want to return to the fact that the commissioner also raises again the Plastimet fire. For almost a year now everyone who has had anything at all to do with or cares about the Plastimet fire has said to you that you have a moral obligation to call a public inquiry. The commissioner has said that you have not answered adequately the questions that arose. You've stood in your place repeatedly and said, "I'll answer any questions," or "I think I've answered all the questions," or "The answers are there." Well, now we've got the Environmental Commissioner saying that you're not providing adequate answers.

It's not just the residents, it's not just the opposition parties, the firefighters involved, the people in the hospital close by. Twelve communities in addition to Hamilton-Wentworth city council and Hamilton city council have all said there needs to be a public inquiry; and now this.

Minister, this isn't going to go away. When are you going to do the right thing? When are you going to finally call a public inquiry into the Plastimet disaster? We deserve it.

Hon Mr Sterling: To the member from Hamilton, who asks about the Plastimet site, I think a little history is important here. During the period from 1990 to 1995, this site had some 20 fires. The member opposite was the Solicitor General at that time and he didn't call an inquiry into what was happening with regard to that site although he had the power at that particular time to do that.

Mr Christopherson: You are a coward.

Hon Mr Sterling: I have said if the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth would like to call an inquiry, we will cooperate. Let them call it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre and member for Riverdale, you must come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: If the government whip wants to stand up on a point of order, you're allowed to. There's no point in heckling me. I can't hear you.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, since when was "coward" parliamentary language?

The Speaker: I didn't hear the member say that. If that's your point of order, then I may ask the member to withdraw it if in fact he said that. Second, I'm not certain "coward" is out of order. If he wants to withdraw it, he can, but I certainly wouldn't rule "coward" out of order.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization, who is also the government lead on auto insurance reform.

Auto insurance reforms introduced by the previous two governments resulted in spiralling costs to consumers and wreaked havoc on consumers' pocketbooks. Under the Liberals' Bill 68, the rate for car insurance began with an increase of almost 7% in just one year. Under the previous NDP government, under Bill 164, consumers saw an increase of some 21% over two years. Motorists were outraged, and rightfully so. This government had to clean up the mess that was created by the previous Liberal and NDP attempts at dealing with the issue of car insurance.

Minister, we appreciate your leadership and the consumers of this province appreciate your leadership on the issue of auto insurance reforms. I would ask the minister to explain to this House and to the people of this province how Bill 59 was able to stabilize insurance rates and what some of the other benefits are to the people of this province.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): To my colleague from York-Mackenzie, who I know has been following our reforms on auto insurance on behalf of his constituents very closely, he will now know, because he has been following it very closely, that the key premise of our reform was to put Ontario drivers back in the driver's seat as far as auto insurance is concerned. Indeed, they were frustrated and annoyed at year-over-year rate increases that were delivered by the plans of the two previous administrations across the House here.

We have tackled the problem by delivering a plan that we think is fair and reasonable. In fact, since its implementation, it has provided rate reductions of just under 10%, which is a tremendous feat given that most jurisdictions in North America are facing rate increases in this particular product year over year, even today as we speak. For retirees, there are even further discounts as they benefit from mandatory retiree discount reductions that we've put in place.

Clearly, to my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie, in fact the auto insurance plan is working. Rates are going down, and consumers have a chance to buy indeed only what they want to and have to buy.

Mr Klees: That indeed is great news for Ontario motorists, and I'm sure all members of the House will applaud you for that. I'd like to know, however, what you're doing to continue to manage this. Other governments have addressed the issue and then have left it, and rates continue to spiral. I'd like to know what other benefits are going to be flowing from Bill 59 and what you as minister are doing to continue to ensure that this issue is managed on behalf of the consumers of this province.

Hon Mr Sampson: The member for York-Mackenzie is correct: Good management of this particular issue involves the continued review of the plan to make sure it is keeping its commitment to Ontarians with regard to rate stability. We have instituted a two-year mandatory review plan, and we intend to do that. We intend to speak to the issues being raised by consumers and other stakeholders within the group, who have been working since the implementation of the particular bill to deliver to this government recommendations for reform that they think make sense, recommendations that would continue to add benefits to Ontario consumers, Ontario drivers.

Quite clearly, the 10% rate reduction I spoke to earlier is a lot of money in the hands of Ontario drivers. It's over half a billion dollars in the hands of Ontario drivers that we are giving back to Ontario drivers, that the previous two governments over there took out of their pockets. We plan to continue our aggressive efforts to provide Ontario drivers with a fair and reasonable auto insurance plan.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, we are now beginning to see the results of your government's takeover of education. What we are seeing is the beginning of a flood of pink slips. Today 272 educational assistants in the Halton Board of Education are receiving their layoff notices. This is 65% of the educational assistants in that board. These people are losing their jobs because your funding formula doesn't allow money for the services they provide to students.

The students are losing the services because you don't seem to understand what these people do in the classroom. What difference do you think the loss of 272 educational assistants will make to the students of the Halton board?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I would say to the member from Thunder Bay that what we will see this year and over the next few years is more money going into the classrooms of Ontario, $583 million more going into the classrooms in Ontario, and less money going to consultants, less money going to administration; less money going out of the classroom, more money going into the classroom.

Over the course of the next year and the next three years, we will see more teachers in the classroom; we will see more textbooks in the classroom; we will see more computers in the classroom for our students; we will see more resources going to libraries, to guidance, to paraprofessionals. We will see more money going where it counts: to the student, into the classroom.

Mrs McLeod: There is in fact $900 million in new cuts in the funding formula, and cuts mean layoffs and loss of services to today's students; 272 educational assistants in the Halton board today. In the Lakehead today, 125 educational assistants are receiving their layoff notices. That's the entire support staff for junior and senior kindergarten. It is going to happen in every board because you're providing only $5 per year per elementary school student for educational assistants and nothing for secondary school students. It's going to happen because your budget for special education is inadequate.

Minister, the people being laid off in Halton today are the people who provide the supports to special needs kids, the supports that keep those children in the classroom. They're the people who take those children to the bathroom. They're the people who walk those children to the school bus to make sure they get home at the end of the day. They're the people who literally hold the hands of the special needs children, who cannot work unless they're getting one-to-one support.

This is a cut that hurts kids in the classroom. It's a cut that hurts the neediest of our children. It may shut them out of the classroom altogether. Will you go back to the drawing-board?

Hon David Johnson: The member from Thunder Bay has a different definition of "cut" than I have. This government has provided stable funding of over $13 billion in each of the next three years. It's a fact; it's an absolute fact.

The member talks about junior kindergarten. The member opposite knows full well that this government has given every board in the province the money to establish either a junior kindergarten program or another early childhood education program in keeping with the nature of that particular community - $100 million more money into the system over the next year for early childhood education or junior kindergarten at the choice of the community.

Along with the stable funding, we've provided transition funding to assist boards through the amalgamation period. We've instituted a textbook and resource fund. There will be more money spent this year in the classroom in Ontario than ever before in the history of the province.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I really want to talk to you about this announcement you made today about the expansion of long-term care.

Indeed you've made a splash in terms of convincing people that you are going to solve the problems that are faced all over the province. By adding together eight years of increases, by ignoring the fact that the numbers of people who are going to need those services are growing exponentially, by ignoring the fact that you've starved the system for three years, you now have made this announcement and you think it makes everything all better.

But what you've really done is announce that our health care is going to move from the publicly funded, publicly accountable system under the Canada Health Act that's offered in hospitals, particularly for chronic care patients - move them into the privatized area where they are not covered -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs Boyd: - by public accountability or by public funds, and in fact, knowing the way you operate, into the profit-making system.

Minister, what we want to know is, when are you going to guarantee -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We have already come up with new design standards for the long-term-care facilities. Indeed there had been no new designs in the province for over 20 years, and unfortunately, people were still being accommodated, as they are today, in ward-like facilities. Also there is a lack of privacy when it comes to washroom facilities.

We have this past year, in consultation with consumers and with those who are in the health care field, in the facility long-term-care field, come up with new design standards. These new design standards already are going to improve the quality of life for people who are living in these long-term-care facilities.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - that there is the appropriate level of funding and care being provided and that design standards have been set that respond to the needs of people in the long-term care -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: Madam Minister, the design standards were not set by you. I can see the member for Huron county. She knows that those design standards were used in the rebuild of her home for the aged. In Windsor, in London at Mount Hope, new design standards were already in place.

If all you can say to the transfer of people into a privatized system, a system that under your government is becoming more and more two-tiered, more and more a system where if you have money you get one level of care and if you don't have money you don't - sure, in the long-term-care system you've changed the standards. Indeed you have. People used to have the assurance that their loved ones were getting at least two hours of nursing care in those facilities. One of the first actions you did was to take that regulation away. Why? Because of flexibility, you say. Well, flexibility means driving down standards, and it's been shown again and again by study after study -

The Speaker: Question.

Mrs Boyd: - that that's what you mean by flexibility.

So I ask you again, Minister, what are you going to do to really ensure that the standards of health care are maintained when you -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Speaking of standards, I would again remind them that new design standards have recently been set. I would just indicate to you that, as a result of the announcement today, we have taken a very significant step in this province in ensuring a better quality of life for individuals as well as appropriate levels of care. I'd just like to read from the release that has gone out today from the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario where they say they applaud the announcement:

"The additional funding will enable agencies to increase their complement of registered nurses and registered practical nurses to a level that better reflects the more acute needs of patients and residents. The nursing professional is encouraged by the government's recognition of need for such an investment in long-term care and is hopeful that this is a significant step in closing many of the gaps in access."

This announcement today is recognized by providers.

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you've now completed the transfer of roads from the province to the municipalities. You've given them a one-time grant in order to maintain these roads.

While this part of the transfer has worked well, the naming of these highways is creating problems. I've had several contacts in my constituency office from confused residents and visitors travelling through Simcoe East. For example, Highway 93, running through Simcoe county, has been changed to County Road 31. Why could these familiar highways not have kept the same name as before the transfer? Why couldn't Highway 93 have been named County Road 93 for the area where it cuts through the county?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank the honourable member for Simcoe East for the question. I'm pleased to hear that the honourable member agrees with the government that the transfer of the highways went well. Indeed, we attempted to work with every municipality affected by the transfers to make sure the transfers were as smooth as possible. Simcoe county alone received approximately $4.3 million for 63 kilometres of highway, including 93.

With regard to the numbering of transferred roads, I want to assure the honourable member that my ministry made every effort to ensure that the same number designation was retained after the transfer. We're aware that a number of local residents and the travelling public had become familiar with those names. We wanted to avoid confusion. Highway 93 is a very interesting case because the county received two sections of that road, 93 south of Highway 400 and 93 north of 12. In one case, they agreed to the same numbering system; in the other case, they changed it. Unfortunately, that's the operation of the municipality. They have that right.

Mr McLean: The fact is: Who is responsible for the naming of these roads? Was it the ministry? Was it the county? Whose jurisdiction? Many other roads in the county have been named the same.

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): What about the -

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, the member for Simcoe East has a right to put his question. Please give him the opportunity.

Mr Pouliot: It's a disgrace.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, come to order.

Mr McLean: Obviously the opposition is not interested in how these roads were named. My constituents want to know who made the decision to change the name to County Road 31 from Highway 93. Highway 12 has been changed to a county road. Why could those not have been left the same? The road map has already got them in there. Who made the decision that these names are what they are?

Hon Mr Clement: When the highway transfers took place, the municipalities received the right to renumber their new roads. Ministry staff have been talking to all the municipalities, and I've been talking to a number of municipalities, to try to encourage them to, wherever possible, keep the same numbering system. In Simcoe county, the numbering designation for roads that were transferred was the same for Highway 169, Highway 50 and Highway 27. As I stated before though, the municipality had the legal right to rename the highway. I encouraged that county and that municipality to avoid confusion.

In one case, they've already renamed provincial Highway 93 down to County Road 93; I think they should do that in the other case as well.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister of Transportation, for the last two years I've been working with the local police and the local elected officials over trying to do something about high-collision intersections. In my own neighbourhood there were 10 people hit by red-light runners. Unfortunately, one person was killed.

As you know, cities like Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa and Hamilton have come to the conclusion that they would like to try these red-light cameras to try and stop this epidemic. It's estimated that possibly 10,000 people a year run these red lights.

I can't understand why you won't at least let them try them, given that in Australia they reduced red-light running by about 72%. They reduced red-light running in Scottsdale, Arizona, by 62%. These local councils and concerned citizens are saying, "Why not give it a try, given the evidence?"

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for the question. I know that on our side of the House when we were in opposition we agreed with the Liberal opposition that photo-radar was not the answer. That's all part of the record. I think the important point, then as now, is that we want to identify the driver, put the sanctions on the driver. Indeed, this government supports front-line policing activities to combat this dangerous offence, because we know it is a dangerous offence that has to be remedied.

In the honourable member's city of Toronto, the police recently nabbed over 1,200 violators because they were there at the scene. They were able to issue demerit points, they were able to issue fines to the drivers. We support any policy that does that, that identifies the driver. My only reply to the honourable member from the Liberal caucus is that of all the range of options to tackle red-light running, why is he supporting the option that is the least effective to identify -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Mr Colle: In response, I support all the options like more police enforcement, and I think we all support those. But it's quite evident you would bankrupt most municipalities if you tried to babysit these intersections with police officers. You couldn't do it. The police in Toronto say they can't afford to do it. What they do say is, "Why not use technology that works everywhere in the world that helps police, that makes their job more effective and saves lives?"

I ask the minister to look beyond the argument about technology to the fact that in recent days not too far from Queen's Park we've had two young girls run over by a red-light runner -

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: I can only quote from Hansard of October 21, 1993: "You just pay your $75 or $100, whatever the fine is, and then you'll continue speeding, because there is no real sanction other than the payment of fines. That of course concerns me."

Interjection: Who said that?

Hon Mr Clement: Tim Murphy, Liberal MPP, St George-St David.

Let me put another quote on the record.

Mr Christopherson: So much for listening.

Hon Mr Clement: Speaking of listening, here's what the Police Association of Ontario had to say: "We believe that cameras on red lights is simply an attempt to raise revenues under the guise of public safety." A tax grab, Mr Speaker. We're not in favour of tax grabs. We're in favour of something that will be effective to get at that aggressive driver. That is our policy.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, as you're aware, Marilyn Churley, the MPP for Riverdale, and I have been persistent, to say the least, in pursuing democratic representation on behalf of the people of East York.

Yesterday I tabled a new private member's bill to give effect to the city of Toronto's request for a third councillor for the ward of East York. Minister, today I am asking you state in this House that you're going to live up to your commitment to respect the democratic wishes of the new city. Yesterday you said that the city had not asked you yet and I provided you with a copy of the official request from the city that was sent to you on April 21.

Minister, today please make the people of East York happy. Colin McLeod from Team East York is here. Tell him that you're going to respect their need for democratic representation. Tell all of us that you're finally going to make the legislative provision for that third councillor for East York.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member of the third party for the question. She's absolutely right. In this House in the last session the member asked for a third representative and I, at that time, said that should be the responsibility of the newly elected council of the city of Toronto. If the newly elected council felt in its wisdom that a third member was necessary, then it would have the right to do that. They have deliberated on that subject and have determined that, in their view, a third member is required. If they want to do that, I would certainly support their request as I committed to do previously.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'd like to thank the minister for at last listening to the people of East York in restoring some form of democracy to East York after the disaster of the megacity. I'm very glad, and I'm sure Mr McLeod and Michael Prue and all of the citizens of East York are very happy today to hear you say that.

What I would like to ask you is when you are going to move on this. Are you going to support the member for Beaches-Woodbine's private member's bill? Are you going to introduce your own? This party, and I think I've heard it from the Liberal Party, is willing to help and facilitate and do everything we can to expedite this. Could you tell us today that you will introduce this or proceed with this immediately so that we can proceed and have the by-election by September, which is what the people of East York have asked for?

Hon Mr Leach: I thank the member for the question. The member for Beaches-Woodbine provided me a copy of the resolution from the city of Toronto today but I must tell them I have not officially received it from the city itself. As soon as we do that, we'll act -

Ms Lankin: Your office has. It came last week.

Hon Mr Leach: To my knowledge, it is not in my office at this time. However, as soon as it arrives we'll take whatever action is appropriate to implement the request.

I've stated repeatedly that the decisions on the makeup of council and the decisions on the makeup of community councils are the responsibility of the duly elected members of the city of Toronto council. I personally think it's a move in the wrong direction. Rather than going up, they should be going down, and I notice that the mayor the other day suggested that the size of council should be cut in half, which is probably a step in the right direction. However, that is their decision. They were elected to make those decisions, they have done that and we will honour that process.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the minister responsible for children. Minister, on March 30 you came to Hamilton and you met with people at a round table discussion, members in our community concerned about children's issues. The focused discussion went around issues revolving around children and programs that actually work and how we can build on those programs to address issues responding to children's needs.

One of the things we hear time and time again is that the earlier we can help these children out the better their futures will be. I was pleased that while you were there we were able to make an announcement as well in funding for one of this government's important initiatives, which is the early intervention and prevention initiative on pre-school speech and language programs.

For the benefit of the opposition members, who don't seem to understand the importance of some of these reinvestments we're making, could you provide us with details on how this program will make a significant difference to people in Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I would like to thank the member for Hamilton West for the question. I also would like to thank you for being proactive in organizing the round table. Those discussions around this province were very helpful.

I agree this is an extremely important program and it will have a tremendous impact on children who have difficulty with their speech and language development. You only have to speak to the mothers and the parents of those children to know how much it means to them. Our reinvestment of $320,000 in preschool speech and language programs in Hamilton-Wentworth will benefit approximately 3,500 children in the region. If you think of 3,500 children who may otherwise have gone the first five years of their lives not being able to communicate, it's astounding.

Our program will provide them with the professional help they need before they start school and they will then have the ability to communicate and the confidence they need to succeed at school and beyond.

Mrs Ross: As parents, we all understand that most parents want to give their children all the support they can to help their children grow and learn. Sometimes, though, parents need extra supports to teach their children how to communicate. How can parents access and use this program to their best advantage to help their children?

Hon Mrs Marland: Parents are often the first ones to see that their young child may need extra help to learn how to express themselves. Parents will have direct access to these programs, and I think that's one of the best features of the programs themselves. A parent who suspects their child may have difficulties communicating can get in touch with the program, making earlier intervention easier. Self-referral by the parents is a very important aspect.

Parent support and education will also be a large part of this program, so young children will know that mom and dad are there to help them learn, and families will be able to see and understand the progress their child is making. To the parents of the 75,000 children province-wide who will benefit from our $20-million reinvestment, this program will help them give their children the best start in life.

RURAL PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Minister of Health. As you know, we're facing a crisis in doctor recruitment and retention all across the province, your own community of Kitchener-Waterloo being a notable example. In northwestern Ontario, we're short at least 46 family doctors and 25 specialists, and are in fact losing physicians all across the region.

Yet the beginnings of a real solution to this crisis may have been in place when there was a commitment last year of $36 million to our medically underserviced communities - a promise made, but now another promise broken, as not one penny of that money has been spent on recruiting and retaining doctors in our underserviced areas.

Minister, this past March 2 you met with Dr George Macey, of the Northwest Chamber of Commerce, and Dr Michael Sylvester, a Marathon physician, who brought you a plan they believe will solve the chronic doctor shortages in northern and rural communities, a plan that has been endorsed by the Ontario Medical Association executive, PAIRO, NOMA, FONOM. Minister, they are confused and frustrated because you have not responded to that and you have not funded this program at all. Can you please tell us why you won't let this carefully worked out plan go forward, why you won't support these locally made decisions?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, certainly we are doing everything possible in order to ensure that the appropriate physicians can be allocated to the communities. As you know, there is the $36 million that has been set aside. I understand that there are ongoing discussions. The money is ready to be provided. We are presently in negotiations with some of the health care providers and we would hope that the money could soon be flowing there. The money is there, it's ready to go; we're simply waiting for people to take us up on the offer.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

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

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut;

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures;

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance;

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures;

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

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars to perform abortions."

This is signed by approximately 1,300 of the residents of Cornwall and SD&G, and I have also signed the petition.

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This petition is signed by a couple of hundred people and it reads as follows:

"Re the petition for commercial tax increases:

"We revoke this ridiculous commercial tax increase that the provincial government of Mike Harris will implement this year.

"We, the signed below, are against this outrageous increase. We are the small businesses of Metropolitan Toronto who have employees counting on us to keep our businesses open so they can feed their families and provide for shelter.

"You, Mr Harris, are forcing us to close our commercial stores, lay off our employees and ultimately sell our properties and making this wonderful Metropolitan Toronto a ghost town. Small businesses such as these have made Toronto grow to the size it is today and by this commercial tax increase we will have lost all that we have worked hard for all these years."

I've signed this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas the two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

This is signed by quite a number of constituents in Waterloo region and Wellington county.

CONDITION D'UNE ÉCOLE

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : J'ai une pétition ici signée par 520 commettants. La pétition se lit comme suit :

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu qu'il n'existe aucune école francophone dans le quartier de Chapel Hill à Gloucester ;

«Attendu que le bâtiment vétuste de 43 ans occupé par l'école depuis six ans devait être temporaire et avait été condamné en 1983 ;

«Attendu que les francophones attendent toujours à ce que se matérialisent les promesses du gouvernement en matière d'éducation ;

«Nous, les soussignés, pétitionnons l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario comme suit :

Il me fait plaisir d'y affixer ma signature.

ABORTION

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

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

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

ABORTION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition from the Knights of Columbus, Orillia Council 1428, Mr Ray Kiley. The petition reads:

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

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

That's from Orillia and there are about 184 names.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is to the government of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario appears to be moving towards the privatization of retail liquor and spirit sales in the province; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a safe, secure and controlled way of retailing alcoholic beverages; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides the best method of restricting the sale of liquor to minors in Ontario; and

"Whereas the LCBO has an excellent program of quality control of the products sold in its stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a wide selection of product to its customers in modern, convenient stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO has moved forward with the times, sensitive to the needs of its customers and its clients; and

"Whereas the LCBO is an important instrument for the promotion and sale of Ontario wine and thereby contributes immensely to the grape-growing and wine-producing industry;

Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its plan to turn over the sale of liquor and spirits to private liquor stores and retain the LCBO for this purpose."

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

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that's signed by hundreds of individuals who live in the Sudbury region. It has been organized and given to me by Mrs Winney of Chelmsford, and I'd like to thank her. It reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas children and grandparents have a fundamental right to have access to each other; and

"Whereas children benefit socially, emotionally and financially by a close relationship with caring and loving grandparents; and

"Whereas Bill 27 would help to eliminate much of the expense and vindictive behaviour so often present in family breakdown; and

"Whereas Bill 27 would remove some of the present backlogs in the family courts; and

"Whereas the province of Alberta recognized the need for legislation broadening grandparents' right to access grandchildren and enacted such a law on September 25, 1997;

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

"To immediately pass Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act, which is intended to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their grandparents by specifically mentioning grandparents."

Although Bill 27 has been lost with the start of the new session, I would encourage the Attorney General to bring forward government legislation on this important issue.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards;

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs;

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences;

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

This petition is signed by 200 parents and students of the Rehoboth Christian School in my riding.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by several hundred constituents very concerned about the state of long-term care in Thunder Bay and district. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Thunder Bay and district are suffering from serious deterioration in our health care system because of the closing of hospital beds before community services and long-term-care facilities are available;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make it an urgent priority to provide more long-term-care services in the home and to provide a sufficient number of long-term-care institutional beds and staff in order to restore the standards of health care to an acceptable level."

I'm very pleased to sign this petition.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas all schools in Ontario should be safe learning and working environments; and

"Whereas all Ontarians should be assured that safe school programs are in place in all Ontario schools; and

"Whereas a private member's bill has been drafted entitled

An Act to Promote Safety in Ontario Schools and Create Positive Learning Environments for Ontario Students, 1998; and

"Whereas this bill will:

"Require all boards in Ontario to design and implement school safety programs, school codes of conduct, and anti-vandalism policies;

"Provide for effective early intervention strategies by requiring boards to design and implement anti-bullying policies and by providing boards with the ability to direct psychological assessments of students that they believe are at risk;

"Provide a provincial violence and weapons-free schools policy and allow boards the ability to exclude violent students from regular classroom settings;

"Give police the tools they need by creating a new provincial offence for trespassing on school property and backing it up with real consequences;

"Direct all boards in Ontario to design and implement alternative education programs for suspended and excluded students;

"Require parents to be liable for any damage done to school property by their children; and

"Protect teachers and staff from civil liability.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to pass the Safe Schools Act as quickly as possible."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Thunder Bay and district are suffering from serious deterioration in our health care system because of the closing of hospital beds before community services and long-term-care facilities are available;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make it an urgent priority to provide more long-term-care services in the home and to provide a sufficient number of long-term-care institutional beds and staff in order to restore the standards of health care to an acceptable level."

It's signed by a large number of constituents in my riding, and I've affixed my signature in full agreement with their concerns.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Mario Cordeiro, who is the working chair of the joint health and safety committee at Cuddy Food Products in London. The petition is signed by members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 175. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

I proudly add my name to those workers.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 81 people. I present it on behalf of the member for London North. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

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

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Rainy River.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Mr Speaker, I will be presenting an amendment to the throne speech at the end of my remarks, but let me say that I am pleased to be able to take

part in the debate at this time since there is much I have to say about the throne speech which was presented last Thursday in the Legislature.

I listened last Thursday to the throne speech. I wanted to hear that the government has a strategy, a strategy to address the hundreds of thousands of children in this province who are now living in poverty. I wanted to hear a strategy from the government that says that this government considers all those children living in poverty to be a priority for it. I didn't hear any strategy.

At a time when we desperately need a strategy to reinvest and re-establish our health care system, the government had a few words of rhetoric, a few dribs and drabs, but nothing approaching a strategy for reinvestment in our health care system.

At a time when community after community across this province is feeling that so much of what has made us strong, what has made us a good place to live is now at risk, the government only congratulates itself on producing much of the destruction.

I came away from that speech and someone in the media asked me, "What do you think?" I summed it up this way: "Never before have so few tried so hard to fool so many about so much."

What I heard is a government that is desperately trying to disguise its vision. Make no mistake about this: It's not a government without a vision but a government that is desperately trying to hide from the people of this province what its real vision is. Why? Because it is a vision that most people across Ontario would reject as soon as they got a clear picture of it. It is a vision that owes more to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher than to any Canadian except Preston Manning. It is a vision that is quite foreign to the values of Ontario people, the values of compassion, of cooperation, of community.

What's in this vision? Let me put it very frankly this way: If the Harris government gets its wish, the quality of health care, the quality of education and even our democratic rights will in the end be determined by the size of our bank accounts. That's where this is going. That's the road of this government and that's the road they want to go down in the future.

Make no mistake about it: Most people in this province would reject that road. People don't believe that access to health care should be measured by the size of your bank account. People don't believe that access to good quality public education should be determined by the size of your bank account. People don't believe that your opportunities in our society, in our province, in our community should be determined by the size of your bank account or your parents' bank account. But that is the direction this government is going in, though it desperately tries to disguise that direction at this point in time.

I want to be clear. Some political leaders in Ontario will tell you that this Conservative government is just going a little too fast and a little too far. I want to be understood clearly on this issue. This is not a matter of a little too fast, a little too far. This is a matter of going in the wrong direction.

Let me put it specifically this way: It is wrong to cut one of the best health care systems in the world in order to finance a tax scheme that's only going to benefit the wealthy, it is wrong to cut one of the better education systems in the world in order to finance a tax scheme that is only going to benefit the wealthy, and it is wrong to slash our community services to finance a tax scheme that is only going to benefit the wealthiest in this province.

It is not just a little too fast, a little too far. It is the wrong direction for the majority of people in this province, and when they see that more clearly they will reject it. People don't want to go down a road where your value as a human being, your worth as a human being is determined by how much money you have.

I want to focus on this government's tax scheme. I want to focus on it and spend some time looking at what it's doing. Why? Because in my view the majority of middle-income and modest-income families in this province end up paying more taxes than ever before through that tax scheme, only, through its course of deception, this government doesn't call them taxes; they call them tuition fees, copayment fees, administrative fees, user fees, higher property taxes.

I want to examine this scheme, because in my view any benefit for middle- and modest-income families is more than cancelled out by those user fees, administrative fees, copayment fees, property taxes and cuts to health care and education - more than cancelled out.

I make this invitation. Speaker, you ought to try this. Take a sheet of paper and on one side of this sheet of paper draw a line down it. On one side of the sheet of paper write down "Harris tax scheme" and on the other side of the paper write down "New user fees, new copayment fees, new administrative fees, new property taxes, cuts to health care, cuts to education, new tuition fees," the whole gamut.

Sit down and look at your paycheque or your pension cheque or, I suppose if you're one of the members on the Conservative bench, look at your investment cheque, your most recent notice from our friends on Bay Street. Sit down and take a look and see what you're getting from this tax scheme. When I invite people across the province to do this, many of them chuckle, they laugh: "I haven't seen this tax scheme. I have an income of $30,000 a year. I haven't seen this tax scheme. I haven't seen any benefit for me."

I ask people, sit down and look at your pension cheque, your paycheque or, in the case of government members, your investment cheque, and write down what you think you get every two weeks. Then on the other side, if you've got a daughter or son in university, you'd better write down $800 a year, because that's how much university tuition fees have gone up already and by next year they'll be $1,100. If you've got a son or daughter in community college, write down $400, because that's how much community college tuition fees have gone up.

If they're going to be in community college next year, write down $500, because they're going up again. If you've got a daughter or son in high school, you might want to ask them about this thing, this new appearance in our high schools. It's called the student activity fee, and the average across Ontario now is $100 a year.

If you're a senior citizen, like my father, and you have to take prescription medicine in order to maintain your health, add on about $200 to $300 in prescription medicine copayment fees, copayment fees which are going up every month.

Then call up your municipal clerk and ask them what the projection is for property taxes. Don't just ask for one year, but ask what the projection for property taxes is over the next three years.

I know what it is for the majority of municipalities in my constituency. People are looking at $300 increases, $400 increases, $500 increases. But don't just ask for one year, ask for the three-year projection, because I know what the government strategy is. The government is going to take some of the money they got out of the teachers' pension fund a few weeks ago and they're going to splash some of it around to cover this up. But the money they've taken out of the teachers' pension fund will only last for a couple of years, and after that runs out, those property taxes are going to shoot up dramatically.

I invite people to do that. On one side of the page try to figure out that little bit you got out of the Harris government's tax scheme, and on the other side of the page add up the university tuition fees, the college tuition fees, the high school student activity fee, the prescription medicine copayment fee, property taxes, birth certificates - the price of a birth certificate doubled in the province under this government. Add them all up and then compare them. While you're doing it, ask yourself what it means. Can you can place a value on losing one of the best health care systems in the world?

Can you place a value on watching what even the Premier describes, when he is outside the country, as one of the best education systems in the world - can you place a value on losing that?

For the majority of middle- and modest-income people in this province, when they actually tally what they get out of the tax scheme, I think, to use one of the Premier's most recent obsessions, one of his most recent fascinations, most people might find they get maybe a six-pack of beer every two weeks, and that's it, at the expense of one of the best health care systems, of one of the best education systems, and at the expense of communities that are now being riddled with reductions in services like public health, ambulance, services for senior citizens, housing for senior citizens, children's programs, recreation programs.

There was a great irony during the throne speech, a great irony watching this government introduce some of the Olympic athletes, because I'm sitting there, and I've got my sheet, and I know this government has essentially eliminated funding for recreation programs in every community across this province. When I talk to schools across this province and they tell me about this phoney in-classroom, out-of-classroom way of now determining education funding, they all say there is virtually no money left in the budget for athletic or recreation programs at the school level.

So a government tries to congratulate itself on the presence of some Olympic athletes here, but the reality is that this government has virtually wiped out the capacity of our communities to work with athletes like that in the future. What duplicity.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Hypocrisy.

Mr Hampton: What hypocrisy to try to take advantage of those Olympic athletes when, if you just look at the surface of this, you'll see that recreation funding for communities across this province has been eliminated and schools are going to be hard-pressed to put together recreation and athletic programs for their students in the future.

But that's the reality of this tax scheme. It's a reality that people need to understand, a reality that people need to check for themselves and to do for themselves.

There's more to this, though, than that comparison, because once an individual has an income of about $80,000 a year, the picture starts to change. You see, if an individual has an income of about $80,000 a year, suddenly the equation goes the other way and the tax scheme starts to overwhelm the new copayment fees, the new tuition fees, the new user fees, the new administrative fees and the property taxes.

If an individual has an income of $100,000 -I notice now the Conservative members are starting to smile; I wonder why - if you get up over $100,000, $125,000 a year, $150,000, the tax scheme far overwhelms the new user fees and the new tuition fees. At $200,000 a year income for an individual it becomes very lucrative.

That's the reality of this tax scheme. The only people who benefit from this government's tax scheme are the wealthiest people in this province. The vast majority of middle- and modest-income families are paying more hidden taxes than ever before.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Harris said they were taxes, those user fees, and they'd never increase them.

Mr Hampton: Yes, that's the irony of this. When the now Premier was in opposition, he referred to tuition fee increases, property tax increases, user fee increases, copayment fee increases and administrative fee increases as tax increases.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): That was then.

Mr Hampton: That was then, this is now. Now he doesn't want to talk about any of those things, and if they're ever brought to his attention, he immediately says, "Somebody else did that."

Let there be no mistake about it: These new user fees, prescription medicine copayment fees, the higher rents that senior citizens are going to be paying, all of the new regime of hidden taxes and hidden fees are a product of this government, and those hidden taxes and hidden fees are falling on the working people of this province, the modest-income people of this province, the middle-income people of this province. The only people who are benefiting are the wealthy friends of this government.

There is another part to this tax scheme that has to be examined. I understand that the tax scheme was a vote-getter. I understand the political element of it. Any time you say to somebody, "I can give you something for nothing," some people will vote for it. So part of it was a vote-getter. It was intended to be a vote-getter and it was. But there's an even more insidious part to this tax scheme, what I call the economic element of it. The political right knows, whether they call themselves the Reform Party, the Conservative Party, the Republican Party, the neo-Conservative Party or the neo-Liberal Party -

Interjection: The federal Liberal Party.

Mr Hampton: Yes, the federal Liberal Party. They know that if you buy into that tax scheme, if you institutionalize that tax scheme, then you essentially cripple public education and public health care in the future.

Why? Because that tax scheme right now takes $5 billion a year out of education and health care. It bleeds money out of health care and education. It bleeds $1 billion, or soon will, out of communities through downloading. That's what happens. The government takes the money and the provinces pick up the costs of the downloading. Where does the money that the provincial government gets out of downloading go? It goes into the tax scheme.

The problem is that tax scheme takes $5 billion now out of health care and education and out of communities. If you look down the road a few years, it's going to take $6 billion out because that's how much it will cost to finance that tax scheme. So you get to the year 2001-02 and you will have to find $6 billion a year out of health care and education and communities to finance that tax scheme.

The political right knows that if you institutionalize that tax scheme, if they are able to successfully institutionalize that tax scheme, then they will have been successful in undermining public education, public health care and the other public services that have been so important to the development of good communities in this province over the last 50 years.

In that sense you can call the Harris tax scheme the Ronald Reagan tax scheme or the Margaret Thatcher tax scheme. The Reagan tax scheme in the early 1980s decimated public education in that country and essentially created a two-tier education system. People who are well-off send their children to private schools or they create their own sort of wealthy communities where they isolate anybody who doesn't have a high income and it's reflected in the education system. The Reagan tax scheme decimated American cities.

When you go now to the United States too often you see American cities where the core of the city doesn't function any more. People there are poor, they can't get a decent education, they can't get health care.

Mr Pouliot: Trapped.

Mr Hampton: They're trapped. They have a very difficult time getting jobs or being part of the economy. Then you go to another part of the community, a wealthier part of a suburb, and you see the different side of society.

Reagan understood when he implemented that tax scheme in the United States what it would to health care, what it would do to education and what it would do to communities: divide society into those who have money and those who don't. Thatcher understood the same thing in Great Britain. She understood that if she could institutionalize her tax scheme and she could institutionalize the selling off of many of those important public services, she would create two societies in Britain, and they have.

One part of British society is wealthier than ever; another part of British society can't get the education their children need, they wait for the health care their children need and they live in communities that are more and more run down.

You could call it the Harris tax scheme, the Reagan tax scheme, the Thatcher tax scheme. It was not only a great vote-getter but is all about taking away the money you need to finance an adequate health care system, a good public education system and to finance the public services that make good communities.

The right knows that if you can institutionalize that tax scheme, in the future in a province like Ontario we'll never be able to find quite enough money to adequately fund education, we'll never be able to find quite enough money to adequately fund public health care, and they know it will create the two-tier system. People who have money will more and more opt to private systems of acquiring health care and people who are dependent on the public system will find that the system is more and more underresourced, underfinanced and you have to wait to get the health care that you need.

Bill 160 is all about creating the framework for the privatization of education. You underfund it, because you take the money away through the tax scheme, and then through Bill 160 you underfund the classrooms, you underresource the classrooms in the schools. Some parents say: "I will not send my children to an underfunded, underresourced public school. I want to send my children to a private school. I want a voucher school. I want a charter school." This government is going to be right there egging that on and supporting it, creating a two-tier education system.

All I can say to you is that you understand it. You know where you want to go. For God's sake, be honest with the people of Ontario and tell them that that's where you want to go. Don't try to use your throne speech to cover it. Don't try to use your throne speech to finesse it. Be honest with people. Tell them that this is where you're going so that they know in the next election what it is they're voting for and what it is this holds in the future, and what it is they're voting against.

A few days ago I had an opportunity to engage in a bit of a debate on CFRB radio. It was supposed to be a leaders' debate. The Premier didn't show - he doesn't show for many of these - but the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr McGuinty, did show. We got into a discussion about health care and education. He said he wants to invest in health care and education. That's what he said. I said, "Well, if we want to invest in health care and education, we have to find the money." Right? Let's be clear with people. You can't invest in good health care unless you're willing to put some money into it and you can't invest in education unless you're willing to put some money into it.

I was asked by the broadcaster, "How would you find it, Mr Hampton?" I said very clearly: "Look, the only people who've benefited from this tax scheme are individuals who have incomes of $80,000 a year and up. Everybody else is paying more taxes: hidden taxes, hidden user fees." I said I believe higher-income people who have benefited from that tax scheme now have an obligation, a social responsibility to make a contribution towards health care, education and our communities. I would take back the tax scheme from the high-income people who have benefited from that tax scheme and I would put the money in health care, in education and in our communities.

Then the announcer said to Mr McGuinty, "Where would you do this? Would you ask high-income people to now reinvest in health care, education and our communities? Would you reverse the tax scheme for the highest-income people in Ontario?" I was struck, because it became apparent to me then and there that the Liberal Party in Ontario actually buys into that tax scheme, because the response was, "No, high-income people who have benefited from that tax scheme should not reinvest in health care and education." The response was that no, there would be no reversal of that tax scheme in so far as it affects high-income people.

I put it this way: Individuals who have incomes of $80,000 and above are in the top 6% of income earners in the province. They get 25% of the benefits from that tax scheme. So 6% of the people in the province get 25% of the benefit of the tax scheme, and I said that those are the people who ought now to reinvest. We ought to reverse the tax scheme. These people have a social responsibility to reinvest in health care, education and our communities.

The response from the Liberal leader was, "No" - wouldn't do it. The moderator of this discussion said, "Then where would you find the money