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

October 19, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ONTARIO HYDRO

MINING INDUSTRY

TAXATION

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

FIRE EXEMPLARY SERVICE MEDALS

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CANADIAN FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

ASSISTANCE TO CO-OPS

CANCER TREATMENT

TAX INCREASES

PAROLE SYSTEM

MENINGITIS

HOMOLKA CASE

HEALTH CARDS

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

MENINGITIS

HEALTH CARE

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

CASINOS

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

OPP DETACHMENT

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

COUNTY OF HASTINGS ACT, 1993

COUNTY OF GREY ACT, 1993

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would like to inform the House of an incident in Timiskaming involving Ontario Hydro that occurred on September 18 at approximately 1:30 pm. What happened was that Ontario Hydro transmission lines were crossed as a result of a beaver felling a tree.

What this did was to cause a transformer to blow and a power outage. What happened was that we had an accompanying voltage surge that caused a lot of damage to people's appliances.

In fact, over 100 households had electronic appliances that were damaged or totally destroyed by this power surge. Resulting damage could be well over $100,000, and virtually all this damage is not covered by standard household insurance policies.

The Ontario Hydro office, when contacted, reviewed the circumstances and could find no evidence of responsibility on the part of Ontario Hydro. The residents of Cobalt feel that Ontario Hydro is to blame for not ensuring that the clearance area around the hydro line wasn't completely free from a tree fall.

Three years ago, there was a great deal of alarm when beavers caused a flood which resulted in a tailings spill in the Montreal River in Matachewan. In that instance, the mining company was held responsible and heavily fined.

It seems there's a double standard in effect here. Why is it that a mining company is held responsible for what beavers do on its property, but Ontario Hydro can shrug off this blame? I believe Hydro not only has responsibility to produce and deliver electricity, but to do so in a safe manner.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My statement is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Mines closing in Ontario now outnumber the amount that are opening. This is happening not for a lack of natural resources and development potential, but is a direct result of government policies that are killing the industry.

Ontario's mining interests are moving their capital and skilled workforce to the United States, to Central and South America and to Europe. One reason companies are leaving is because nearly three quarters of the province is under exploration freeze due to negotiations with natives.

Another major obstacle to mining in Ontario is environmental regulations which overlap federal measures and make mining more expensive and time-consuming than it should be. Instead of running this government's obstacle course, mining companies are simply going to other countries.

I remind this government that 30,000 Ontarians are employed in the mining industry and another 56,000 Ontario jobs are directly dependent on mining. Furthermore, the mining industry provides the province with over $280 million per year in tax revenues.

I urge the minister, the government, to rethink policies which are driving the mining industry out of Ontario and realize how important the industry is in terms of employment and in terms of the minerals we need to maintain our standard of living.

TAXATION

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): In today's world of tight money, the ordinary men and women in my riding of Durham East are left wondering, when in this crazy world is something going to be done about sharing the pain of doing with less?

According to the Fair Tax Commission, 23% of all Ontario's wealth is owned by 1% of the people and 46% is owned by 5% of the people. I'm left wondering why so few people have so many toys to play with.

The working men and women in my riding have all searched their tax forms and they can't find that box where they check off 50% for restaurant meals, and they can't find that box either where they can claim the SkyDome seat, nor can they claim the oxygen to get up to the top to breathe when they get there.

It's just crazy that the workers in my riding pay taxes on 100% of their wages while the barons of business only pay tax on 75% of their profits. It's time we come to grips with things in Ontario and make the few ultrarich people in the province share the pain with the rest of the working folks who have no choice in this matter.

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I would like to comment on a couple of the NDP initiatives that have been highly touted as their way of doing business in the province of Ontario.

It was just a year ago that they came to an agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to allow the Ontario Beekeepers' Association to do certain programs to monitor the expansion of some predatory mites as they affect the beekeeping business in Ontario.

After having come to an agreement with these people in the association to privately do the monitoring required to ensure the health of the bee population of this province, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food cut back $30,000 for this year and $50,000 for next year, really meaning that it has withdrawn almost totally from the business of protecting the bee population in this province.

Some people may not think this is a big issue, but this is a huge issue for the over 4,500 producers in Ontario, and it really is a prime example of how the New Democratic government of this province has pulled away from providing service to the people of this province, and then letting the blame fall on the private providers who have agreed, by contract, to take over the program.

The New Democrats haven't got the guts to tell the people they are withdrawing from providing service to the people of this province. They haven't got the guts to tell people they are pulling away from their responsibility of providing health care services in this province. They haven't got the guts, they haven't got the stamina to govern this province in an honest and fair way.

The Ontario Beekeepers' Association knows what they've done. The rest will soon know.

FIRE EXEMPLARY SERVICE MEDALS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On October 29, 16 firefighters in Mississauga will be decorated with the Fire Exemplary Service Medal from the Governor General. This distinguished award is presented to persons in high-risk professions "in recognition of 20 years of loyal and meritorious service to public security in Canada."

There are few experiences as terrifying as being trapped in a fire. In just minutes, a fire can spread from the point of ignition to a house-engulfing blaze. Anybody who has escaped from a fire realizes that firefighters demonstrate incredible bravery, risking their lives on a daily basis in order to save ours.

Firefighters also provide emergency medical help, rescue trapped people, contain hazardous spills, plan for emergencies, inspect for fire safety and educate the public.

The residents of Mississauga join me in offering our deepest respect and gratitude to the firefighters who will receive the Fire Exemplary Service Medal. They are:

-- Captains Bernie Charron, Charlie Duncan, Jim Haight, Jim Lawton, Larry McPhail, Al Mooring, Andy Parkinson, George Shering, Doug Wilson; and

-- Firefighters Jim Chormier, Chic Cyr, Phil Dorval, Errol Doddridge, Peter Halter, Mike McBride and Trevor Robinson.

I am honoured today to convey our heartfelt thanks to these veteran firefighters and to all the men and women who risk their lives in order to protect the public.

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This week is Public Library Week in Ontario. It's an opportunity for you to visit your public library and see what's new.

Ontario libraries are so important to our social and economic wellbeing, as well as offering a wealth of culture and literature. In Niagara Falls, our library is truly a community centre, with meetings going on morning, noon and night in the beautiful Judy LaMarsh Room at our library. It is a place of beauty and it is at the very pulse of community life.

Public libraries across Ontario are now at the forefront of the information age. I visited our library yesterday morning to launch the new provincial database, INFO, on CD-ROM. With this new computer database, I was able to call up any of four million books, records and videotapes from all across the 200 libraries in Ontario. With INFO, everyone across Ontario can use this information.

Niagara Falls library now is raising $4,000 for a feasibility study so it can apply for provincial funding to computerize the collection, certainly much needed in this day and age. Once we are computerized, we can put our Niagara Falls records, with many unique records, into the Ontario INFO system and not just access the collections of others.

I want to welcome librarians from all over North America to Niagara Falls for their international convention beginning November 3. I encourage all MPPs and everyone watching to see the new INFO system in your library.

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today to relate to the House the comments from many of the constituents in my riding over the negative advertising by the federal Progressive Conservative Party where they concentrated on the facial features of Mr Chrétien. My residents, who are Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals, were appalled by that type of advertising.

I didn't make this statement yesterday because I was waiting for members of the provincial Conservative Party, and for that matter the government, to perhaps rise to take exception to this and represent the views of those people.

We all saw in the 1960s the US influence on our advertising. Mr Muskie: They revealed that he had seen a psychiatrist once. I think the problem the federal Conservatives had was that they employed a US assistant. I think the US assistant will no longer be hired by anybody. I think for once we've realized that Canadians are different than Americans. We do not allow this kind of conduct in our advertising.

It was Mr Chrétien's facial features. Who knows if they'd do it again? Perhaps it could be someone with another disability. It could be a cultural person.

I stand here today waiting to hear from the other parties to see whether or not they're going to speak out about this unfortunate and distasteful type of advertising.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): The council of the township of St Vincent has passed a resolution that reads as follows:

"That, in view of a large increase in traffic, including large trucks, the Ministry of Transportation once again be requested to consider the construction of a passing lane on Highway 26 for Bayview Hill."

The minister will know that Bayview Hill, between Meaford and Owen Sound, badly needs attention, but there are other troubled areas as well.

I very much appreciate the work that has already been done in my riding on Highway 10 between Dundalk, Flesherton and Markdale and on the small stretch of Highway 6 north of Mount Forest. But, as my colleague Ted Arnott, the member for Wellington, has reminded the House on several occasions, much more needs to be done.

Highways 6 and 10 between Chatsworth and Owen Sound are very heavily travelled and highly congested. Four lanes would greatly improve driving conditions and would reduce the danger of accidents as well.

Highway travelling is a way of life for people in Grey, and our small businesses and our tourist industry, which welcomes thousands of cottagers, hikers and skiers every weekend of the year, rely on good roads to keep them afloat.

I would ask the minister to strongly consider St Vincent's request and to proceed with the construction and improvements needed in other areas of the county. We need safe highways and we need them now.

CANADIAN FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On behalf of the government and all members of this House, I am pleased to join the Canadian Foster Family Association for the third consecutive year in declaring this Canadian Foster Family Week.

This is a very significant week, with a number of special events planned by children's aid societies and foster parent associations throughout the province. It provides an opportunity for all of us to celebrate and recognize the very important role that foster families play in our communities.

There are 54 children's aid societies in Ontario that provide substitute care to more than 20,000 children annually. Many of those children are being cared for in the more than 4,800 foster homes across the province.

On a personal note, my family has been involved with foster parenting and I have seen many examples of the kind of satisfaction that comes from providing this kind of assistance to young people.

We have a number of guests in the gallery today representing the Foster Parent Society of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. The foster parents in attendance today are Barbara Ptashynski, Alexandra Irish and Sally and Alex Barthomeley. Also in attendance today are Vincent Taylor and Siobhan Devine from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

I think all of the members of the House would join me in congratulating these representatives for the very important work they are doing in providing safe, secure and caring foster homes for children who need these services.

Our guests have brought some buttons with them today to promote awareness of Canadian Foster Family Week, and I hope that many of the members will put on a button to demonstrate their support and enthusiasm for Canadian Foster Family Week.

One of the purposes of this week is to raise the profile of foster parenting and perhaps to let people know how they can become involved. If you are interested, you can contact the children's aid society or the foster parent association in your region or neighbourhood.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE TO CO-OPS

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This week, members of cooperatives throughout the province are celebrating Co-op Week.

This event highlights the unique contribution that co-ops make to Ontario. For more than 140 years, people have formed cooperatives to help each other and to help their communities. The co-op sector success has played an important

part in economic development and creating jobs in Ontario.

Because co-ops are locally based, they respond to local needs. Furthermore, their earnings stay in the community. Last year, for instance, Ontario co-ops had more than $1 billion in revenue, all of which remained in the province.

To enable cooperatives to have an even stronger role in our economy, we believe we must give them the tools and resources. I am pleased to announce today, during Co-op Week, the government's strategy to foster the growth of cooperatives.

This strategy is the result of a year-long review coordinated by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Scarborough Centre, Steve Owens.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Where is he sitting?

Hon Mr Laughren: He is sitting beside me. The cooperative movement has no better friend in this province than Steve Owens. This review included more than 20 public meetings across the province and a lot of hard work by an advisory group representing every major co-op organization in Ontario.

The consensus from this consultation was clear: Co-ops need improved access to business assistance programs, they need more flexibility to raise capital and they need to heighten awareness of cooperative entrepreneurship.

This government is acting on these recommendations:

-- To improve access to business assistance programs, we have targeted co-ops for all three components of Jobs Ontario Community Action.

-- We are giving the Ontario Worker Co-op Federation a $1.8-million grant under Jobs Ontario Training to develop worker cooperatives.

-- In addition, we will broaden the Ontario investment and employee ownership program to allow employees who buy out their companies to convert them to worker co-ops.

-- We are going to extend programs like new ventures, youth ventures and student ventures to include co-ops as well. These programs have already helped entrepreneurs get started. The changes we are announcing today will give cooperative entrepreneurs an opportunity to get their businesses going.

-- In response to requests for more flexibility to raise capital, we will examine how we can reform the Co-operative Corporations Act to give co-ops more ways to raise money to start up and grow. Our review of the act will begin this fall.

-- To raise awareness of cooperative entrepreneurship, we will put information on co-ops in the government business assistance publications and workshops. We will also develop educational materials for schools. We want more people to know about this model because we are certain many more people will find the cooperative approach suits their goals.

By supporting the development of cooperatives, this strategy will help co-ops do more for their communities.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the sectoral advisory committee who are here today in the members' gallery. They are Brian Ashford, Bob Bethune, John Brouwer, Sophie Edwards, Pierre Lacasse, Allan Lanctot, Carol Mitchell, Michel Paulin and David Westbrook and Judy Goldie.

Their dedication and hard work is appreciated not only by the government and the co-op sector but also by the hundreds of communities in Ontario that in the future will benefit from the work they've already done and will do in the future.

Mr Elston: I was interested to see that the Finance minister, who used to be called the Treasurer but now the Finance minister, has taken credit for a year-long study into this through his parliamentary assistant. Mr Owens has obviously met and heard and listened -- well, he didn't take credit, he's talking about the government taking credit for Mr Owens's work.

It seems to me that what has happened, though, is that while they have moved the co-ops into several areas where other traditional business forms in this province have already been before, they have moved them into areas that have had dubious records with respect to successful rates of investment in the province of Ontario.

While the people in the movement of cooperatives around the province may wish to be involved and show their abilities to achieve success for the government's initiative, it seems to me that we ought to examine some of the problems that currently are being dealt with in the communities.

For instance, the Jobs Ontario strategy has not been able to match the people who have enrolled with positions to be trained, and whatever organization is allowed to participate in the Jobs Ontario activities, they must have healthy and successful economic communities within which to allocate the funding for those new Jobs Ontario Training positions.

The Treasurer of this province knows full well that one of the really big problems with creating a positive economic atmosphere in which the cooperative movement or the business movement in this province can actually become successful is to honestly present what the books of the province show, where he's making his expenditures and how in fact he is spending the dollars which he collects.

If the co-ops are to participate successfully, then the Finance minister must set the standard of honesty and integrity in bookkeeping that allows investment successfully in the economy of this province. That's not me speaking, that is the auditor of this province telling us that the books aren't really that good in this province.

I just issue a very small warning to the people in the co-op movement that, while they have an ability to do things that would appear impossible to some others, this Finance minister and the manner in which he is handling his books is conspiring against the energy with which the co-op movement has traditionally attacked problems like this.

It is also interesting that we have only spent one year doing the studies of the capitalization problem for cooperatives. I don't understand how the member for Scarborough Centre could fully bring into this House, with the Finance minister's help, a recommendation that we begin this fall to study the means by which capitalization can be taken off the problem agenda for co-ops in this province.

The member for Scarborough Centre rightly noted that when I was Minister of Financial Institutions, that issue was raised with me and we weren't able, in the short time I was there, to tackle it successfully. However, that is more than three years ago or about three years ago now. It seems to me that, after a full year of study by the member for Scarborough Centre, something more than another study being announced could very well have been put in place.

In fact, had this government been willing to move forward, they would have put forth for a consultation their version of what they wanted to happen with the capitalization problem for cooperatives in this province. It is interesting to note that if they start this fall, they will be able to take this study right through 1994. I would speculate that there will be an announcement with respect to cooperatives and capitalization to be made probably very early in the calendar year 1995.

These people have a timing that is --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: It's very interesting, Mr Speaker, they're trying to yell me down, but let it be seen that the timing for the report on this study, the timing for the report on the study on education and the parents' council on education, all of those will take a calendar year and all of those will be available for the release of a platform which I suspect Mr Rae and the others over there believe will save the New Democrats from the same fate as Audrey McLaughlin is now about to feel.

It seems to me that these people have cynically set the timing to deal with issues of real economic concern for the cooperative movement, of real economic concern for the men and women in this province who face the loss of their jobs, who would like to build workers' co-ops as a matter of fact, as an alternative to the current ownership situation. They have set the timing for those initiatives for the timing of their re-election bid, and I do not support that in the least.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There's little, if anything, in this announcement today that could simply not be applied to any business, small, large, medium, in this province as far as the applicable recommendations brought forward by this government are concerned. There's not any doubt in this province today that everybody is having a very, very difficult time with the flexibility to raise capital. Everybody's having a tough time.

There's no doubt, in my mind, that every single business in this province is having a difficult time dealing with government's level of debt, level of taxation and level of red tape. I myself will not think that this will be a huge boon to the Ontario economy. I don't believe this is going to turn us around. It may be a public educational program for the people out there to have a little bit better understanding of the cooperative program.

A grant of $1.8 million that the government is going to give out is simply not going to resolve the situation we're faced with today. If you read page 2, we are giving the Ontario Worker Co-op Federation a $1.8 million grant under Jobs Ontario Training to develop worker cooperatives. You know full well that they're giving this money through Jobs Ontario because they're not out there accessing the money because Jobs Ontario is so messed up. They have extra money. They're trying to figure out how to spend it because they're not using it appropriately and it's not creating the kind of work they hoped and prayed it would create when they announced it in the first place.

"In addition," they say, "we will broaden the Ontario investment employee ownership program to allow employees who buy out their companies to convert them to worker co-ops." Why do we need $1.8 million and why do we need this? Because there are a lot of businesses out there that the banks aren't lending money to because of the recession, because of government debt and because they're very risky businesses. So we, the government, have decided that we're going to try and get involved and take

risks that standard lenders won't take because they're concerned they won't see any return on their investment.

That's what happens when you get involved in government grants and government loans to businesses out there because the standard lenders either are not comfortable in the environment that they're in today or they're concerned about the risk. That's why we, as governments, end up lending money. So to think that this is some kind of panacea that's going to resolve the economic woes we're faced with, it's not. To think it's going to, as the Treasurer suggested, cover hundreds and hundreds of communities in a breakout pattern that's going to create prosperity out there is another panacea that will not exist.

I'm not a huge fan of government-sponsored, subsidized programs to create short-term economic growth, because they're not long-term. If we want to help the people in the province in business, if we want to help the cooperatives out there, they're asking us to do a couple of things that this government can do: Cut the red tape, cut the political, in-your-face bureaucratic attitude that all governments have today, cut the taxes, cut the deficit and cut the debt. That would go far further in rebuilding this economy than any kind of scheme that's worked up, with all due respect to the member for Scarborough Centre, by this government in hopes of rebuilding the economy.

I give the Premier more credit, I suppose, than the member for Bruce because I know he's a Rhodes scholar and he knows that this program is not going to rebuild the hopes of the NDP and get them re-elected.

He may well have a plan put together just in time for the next election to announce the whole new NDP slogan on cooperative programs, but I will caution this government: Before you go about giving out $1.8 million expanding Jobs Ontario to create opportunities for businesses to borrow more money, be very, very careful, because in my opinion, any time governments have been involved in joint venture programs, most have gone the wrong way, and the wrong way is the taxpayers end up footing unfairly a huge proportion of the costs. If you, as a government, want to help business --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have an idea. Let's sell the airport.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Yorkview.

Mr Stockwell: -- get out of their face, cut the taxes, cut the deficit, get the debt under order and tell your Treasurer to start reporting the deficits in this province more honestly and be more straightforward and have a meeting with the auditor to straighten the mess out that you've created in three years.

I'm sorry, the member for Scarborough Centre: You spent a year on this but you've come to the wrong conclusions. Get out of their lives; don't continue complicating them.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you offered many words of defence and explanation yesterday when I raised the very real concern of the people of this province about access to treatment for cancer. You even suggested at one point that it was a somewhat partisan approach that I was taking. I can assure you that for me this is a very real issue for very real people.

The bottom line of my questions is that it is absolutely inexcusable that the waiting lists for radiation therapy in the province of Ontario can now be as long as six to eight weeks. It is absolutely intolerable that any cancer victim should have to wait for treatment while the disease grows worse, perhaps even to the point where it is being diagnosed as incurable.

Minister, you acknowledged yesterday, and we agree, that we have all known for years that a crisis in cancer treatment would develop if steps weren't taken immediately. The planning and the work was being done so that the crisis we face today could have been avoided, and I say that all of the planning has been thrown off the rails by a series of ad hoc, crisis decisions that have been made since you became Minister of Health.

Yesterday you said the problem that we face today in treating cancer is primarily a shortage of trained cancer specialists. Your response to that was to send out a call for foreign-trained specialists. I ask you, Minister, what have you been doing to encourage the cancer specialists who are trained here in the province to stay and practise here and provide the care that people need?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me correct what the Leader of the Opposition has said.

I said the problem was an increasing incidence of cancer and a change in the protocol of practice which is appropriate and which calls for greater amounts of radiation or people needing radiation than were anticipated even in 1985 when the previous government received the initial report of the fact that we were facing a crisis. I also said we lacked enough machines as well as personnel. I indicated that we were moving to address the shortage of machines and that in the next three or four years there would be more. We have to, at the same time, move to make sure we have the personnel available.

There are graduates coming from our medical schools who will be available in time: not enough of them. In response to her question, we have identified this as an area where we need more students to take the post-graduate studies that will enable them to be available.

But I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that earlier this year there were a great many graduating physicians who wished to go into fee-for-service practice in Ontario and were very critical of this government for suggesting that there were in fact specialties and areas where there were enormous shortages.

I stood outside the cancer treatment centre in Sudbury, having just been told about its difficulty in finding radiation oncologists, met outside with graduating doctors who were saying they wanted to do something different. So in this province, graduating doctors choose their specialties. What we can do is make sure that they are aware of the need and that, as we develop for the first time human resource planning --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- we identify the priorities and help to direct people to meet them.

Mrs McLeod: I wonder if it ever occurred to this minister to ask herself why people who are graduating from our medical schools want to do, as she says, "something different."

Minister, yesterday you said that part of the problem in providing access to cancer treatment was that there was a shortage of cancer specialists, specifically radiation oncologists, the very people we need in order to provide the radiation therapy where we're seeing such long waiting lists. You said there was a worldwide shortage; once again, it was not a problem of your making.

Let me take you back to a situation we raised last spring, last June, when 1,100 young doctors crowded into the Royal York Hotel to talk to American recruiters about jobs in American hospitals. I don't know what clearer evidence there could be that doctors in this province, that new graduates in this province, are finding it less and less attractive to work here. In fact, you may remember one of those recruiters saying he'd have to give the NDP a donation for making his job so easy.

Minister, I believe this is something that you must take responsibility for. It is a clear result of your policies. Your only response to that issue has been to say you will now recruit doctors trained outside the country. There are graduates being trained here. I ask if you have any idea how many of the cancer specialists who are currently being trained here in Ontario are leaving, and are leaving because of your policies.

Hon Mrs Grier: I reject categorically that people who leave are leaving because of our policies.

In response to the member's specific question, let me tell her that in 1994 there will be 16 graduates in radiation oncology, in 1995 there will be 20, and in 1996 there will be six. It is certainly our hope and our expectation that there will be positions in Ontario for all of those graduates, and I hope indeed that all of them will remain and fill those positions. We are contributing massively, as you pointed out much earlier this year, to the cost of their education. I hope that they will work in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Once again we have hopes and wishful thinking instead of planning and direct action on the part of this government. I asked this minister a very specific question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I asked you a very specific question. I wasn't talking about the future or your hopes for the future; I was asking if you knew how many graduates, trained cancer specialists trained in Ontario, were staying to practise in the province.

I am told that in June 1993 there were 11 graduates in radiation oncology, the very specialists that you say we need to deal with the current crisis. Four of those 11 have stayed to practise in the province of Ontario. That means less than 40% of the physicians we trained in this speciality are staying to provide care to the people of this province. More than 50% of the graduates that we trained here have left the province of Ontario to practise elsewhere.

I believe it is absolutely inexcusable that you did not know this. It is absolutely inexcusable that you did not even want to understand how your policies are affecting the willingness of the people we trained here to stay and practise in the province of Ontario and provide the kind of care people need.

I ask you, why are you now looking to bring in people who are trained elsewhere rather than trying to understand why the people we trained in this province are not staying here and what you can do about it? Why are you not willing to recognize what you have done to make this crisis worse?

Hon Mrs Grier: The Leader of the Opposition, as is the wont of leaders of the opposition, is trying to make very simple and black and white a very complicated situation. If there were in fact 11 graduates in radiation oncology in this province last June, I don't know where those 11 came from, whether they were all Ontario students who wanted to remain in Ontario or whether they perhaps came from another province or another jurisdiction to train in our first-class facilities and then wanted to return to where they had come from. I would have to know that information before accepting the premise of her question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: What I want to say to her is that medical and other specialists leaving Ontario, leaving Canada to practise elsewhere, is not new.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): When you set 25%, you gave them their walking papers.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Mrs Grier: It has happened all the time. What fascinates and is important to me is that 85% of those specialists who leave eventually return, and I think that kind of ratio will continue.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with her second question.

TAX INCREASES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Premier. There's a report just recently released by Global Economics that shows that Ontario taxes have increased by $3 billion, that the average family is paying $663 more each year in taxes. The figures are familiar to us, but we have seen how these new taxes are affecting jobs. The economic recovery that you so hopefully again predicted in your spring budget has yet to occur, and the Conference Board of Canada has projected that the taxes you brought in that budget alone have slowed our economic recovery and will cost jobs.

Surely it is obvious that no government can impose $3 billion in new taxes without killing jobs.

Premier, will you now tell us how many jobs have been lost in Ontario as a result of your $3-billion tax bill?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can tell the honourable member very directly that since the recovery in the province began over a year ago, we have seen a growth in jobs of over 100,000. There are over 100,000 more people working this year than at the same time last year and there are 25,000 fewer unemployed people in the province than there were last year.

Those are the facts which the Leader of the Opposition would choose to ignore. The Leader of the Opposition may want to have one question on one subject and one question on another subject, but let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this. She's saying to us: "Spend all the money you can on health care. Forget about your budget; just let everything go on that. Solve the problems by spending, spending, spending, and don't raise any taxes, and lower the deficit." That is a proposition which does not add up. It will not work, it has not worked and it will not work in Ontario. It's a strategy that cannot succeed in this province.

We have to tax responsibly and fairly, and I would say to the honourable member that's what we have been striving to do in the face of enormous economic difficulty. I stand thoroughly behind the Minister of Finance in terms of the steps we've had to take to deal with the crisis.

Mrs McLeod: It's also a fact that in Bob Rae's Ontario, the new definition of "economic recovery" is a slowing down in the rate of bankruptcies.

Premier, we understand why you brought in the job-killing taxes. We understand you brought in your job-killing taxes in order to deal with your financial problems. But what you don't seem to understand is that it hasn't helped. You brought in over $3 billion in new taxes, but your revenues are actually down by $1.5 billion.

What you don't seem to understand is that the new taxes mean that businesses are leaving Ontario, that jobs are being lost. The Global Economics report is predicting a brain drain of trained professionals leaving Ontario because of the tax increases, and people don't pay taxes when they don't live and work in this province any longer.

How do you justify $3 billion in new taxes to shore up your sagging revenues when taxes are clearly killing jobs, hurting the economy and, ironically, lowering government revenues?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that there's a partisanship and a superficiality to her analysis that literally defy description. That was true of her first question and it's true of her second question.

The province has been going through a difficult recession. That is a fact. We can argue about the causes and consequences of that for a long time, but its impact is undeniable. It's not unique to Ontario. It didn't start on September 6, 1990. Your leader called an election in 1990 because he saw the writing on the wall with respect to the recession; that's why he called the election early.

You talk about the NDP's sagging revenues. The province's revenue situation has been difficult. The fact of the matter is that taxation as a percentage of GDP is lower today than it was when the Liberals were in office four years ago. It's lower today than when you were in office, and that's a hard fact. Revenues have declined as a result of the recession. We're trying to deal with the recession, and we're trying to deal with it in a responsible way.

I can tell the honourable member that the approach she is advocating is one that has zero credibility. Perhaps in due time, as events unfold across the country and with the election under way which will take place on Monday, we will then see just how straightforward and just how clear-cut are some of the solutions that the Leader of the Opposition has been putting forward. I look forward to those days.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Leader of the Opposition take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Before the election actually arrives, perhaps we could have at least one more question.

Mrs McLeod: After that response, I'm going to have to go back to the dictionary and look up the definition of "partisan," obviously. It's something like the new definition of "economic recovery"; it's not something I ever understood before.

In all seriousness, I want to say to both the Premier and the Minister of Health, who have accused me of being partisan because I raised the very real concerns of very real people, I thought that's what politics was supposed to be all about, and that's what I'm going to keep doing.

If the Premier is not prepared to listen to me, if every issue I raise seems to him to be a partisan issue, maybe he'll respond to people across the province who write to us and talk to us about their concerns. Maybe you will say something to a small business operator from Thorold who says his business is being taxed to death, that he is now on the verge of going bankrupt.

Maybe you'll say something to the farmer from Essex who says, "We are deeply concerned about the negative impact to the economy of any further tax increases," or say something to the small business operator from eastern Ontario who complains that the NDP's tax policies have hurt his business and have forced him to cut back his staff from nine to five employees.

Premier, that is just a sample of the kinds of concerns we hear from very real people every day. I ask what you have to say to these very real people in Ontario. How do you explain your $3-billion tax increase to the people who are losing their businesses and losing their jobs?

Hon Mr Rae: I hope when you're writing back to the small business owner from Thorold, you'll say, "The NDP has lowered the small business tax in comparison to what it was under the Liberal government of which I was a member." I hope you will say that while you supported every one of the 50-plus tax increases put in by the Liberal Party, which hit small business, which introduced the employer health tax, which applied it across the board and which hit those people, while you did that, of course you suddenly changed your mind on September 7, 1990.

In terms of any of the increases which have been described as progressive, even by the Liberal advocate who put forward the report yesterday, you suddenly find yourself unable to believe in those. You will of course point out that the capital cost allowance for corporations has also been lowered and that's one of the reasons that's put in place.

I say to the honourable member, I hope you are telling the people who are writing to you the truth about what has happened with the Liberal Party, what the Liberal Party did in government and what this government has been doing with respect to the tax system. We've made it fairer and we're going to make it fairer still. We're certainly going to make it a lot more fair than anything that took place under the Liberal Party of Ontario when it was the government for the last five years.

The Speaker: New question, third party; the leader of the third party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I don't think the question to be decided here today is: Who taxed the most, the Liberals or the NDP? Quite frankly, the Liberals are the master taxers. There is no question that they have taxed and hiked taxes, job-killing taxes, far more than you have.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: However, Premier, here's the question for you. Not only weren't the Tory taxes enough for you, but you wanted the cumulative effect of all the punishing, job-killing Liberal taxes. But all of those combined with the former Tory taxes weren't enough for you. You had to bring in $3 billion more on top of even all those taxes. That's what we are talking about here: the cumulative effect of all the tax increases.

At the same time we read yesterday that Ontario is one of the high-tax provinces, we also read that we're also the fourth-highest borrower in the world on the international markets and the biggest borrower of any government in the world on the international markets. At the same time as you're out borrowing that money, you now, according to the Canadian Business Economics journal study, are officially classified as a high-tax province.

Let me ask you this, Premier: When can the taxpayers of Ontario expect a tax break from your government?

Hon Mr Rae: When I hear a Tory on the subject of taxation, where was the honourable member when the federal government raised taxes across the board? Where was the honourable member for the GST, three little letters that have led to the tax revolt across this country? The first bill we introduced as a government was to say that we're not going to put the retail sales tax on top of the GST. Where was he on that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is having difficulty now because he can't decide whether he's the pal of Presto or whether he's the pal of Kim, and he's got five more days to make up his mind.

I can tell the honourable member that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this province who know full well that this government has succeeded in making the tax system fairer. I admit we've had to raise taxes to pay for programs, but those senior citizens who are on low incomes, those people who are making less than $20,000 a year, those people who face the greatest difficulty in terms of their lives have had consistent tax breaks from this government. We've insisted on making the tax system fairer.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell the honourable member we've got more budgets to go and we've got more fairness to come and greater things ahead for the people of this province, and it won't be because of anything that's been asked for or sought by the would-be Reformers and once-were Conservatives who are on that side of the House.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary to your comments, Premier, I think you will find that I am a pal of all taxfighters all across this country who will fight taxes, and that means on this issue I am no pal of yours. That's what that means.

It's not surprising that every day we see and hear how frustrated Ontarians are. Here is the first ever NDP government in Ontario, the self-professed champions of the downtrodden, and what have they done? They have stuck it to all of us, even the working poor.

The report released yesterday shows how even families earning as little as $15,000 to $20,000 a year are having more money picked from their pockets by you, your government, your cabinet, your budget. You have grabbed, as the report indicates, almost $3 billion new tax dollars on top of all those ones that were already there, an average of $633 per family this year alone.

But every year we get the same answer from the Treasurer: Revenues are falling short of projections; the deficit target is in jeopardy. Premier, the reason is simple: You've hiked our taxes well past the breaking point.

I ask you now, when will you admit that this approach of the last eight and a half years of hiking taxes is the wrong approach, that it's not working, and will you take a different tack and give taxpayers a break?

Hon Mr Rae: He says "eight and a half years." I thought the Tories had been in power federally for nine years. Eight and a half or nine; we can argue about the six months.

I will say to the honourable member this: With respect to his facts, which he has wrong, as he does every single day he raises the question in the House, 400,000 --

Mr Harris: The Canadian Business Economics journal.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I can't help it if after all the research help you get, the best you can do is quote from a newspaper article. I would say to you, the facts are that there are --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Ask about those facts, Bob, cooking the books.

Hon Mr Rae: If the honourable member for Willowdale will control himself for a second; I know it's difficult.

There are 400,000 people in this province who are either paying no income tax who were paying it before --

Mr Harnick: Ask the auditor about the half-billion dollars you're trying to hide.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Rae: -- or who are paying less as a result of the steps that have been taken by the Minister of Finance. Those are the facts. Those are the facts which the honourable member chooses not to admit.

When we look at the situation with respect to the deficit in this province, over $16 billion of the $38 billion that we have seen the deficit increase can be accounted for alone by the cutbacks in federal transfers -- alone by the federal transfers, alone by the Tory party, by a Tory government which has systematically neglected the interests of the 10 million people who live in the heartland of Canada. You've stood in your place and said and done nothing --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- except go out and tell people to vote for Kim Campbell. That's been the extent of your activity in defence of Ontario. I can tell you we are going to stand up for the people of Ontario. We're going to bring in a fairer tax system despite the treatment and the neglect on the part of the federal government, and we're going to continue to fight for that in the face of the kind of reactionary proposals that come from the leader of the third party.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: The first Premier, the first cabinet, the first Treasurer in the history of the Ontario government where the auditor said, "I refuse to sign those books; they're fudged," and you're talking to me about disagreeing with the numbers from the Canadian Business Economics.

The Speaker: Is this the member's second question?

Mr Harris: My final supplementary: The headline on today's Toronto Sun spells out pretty clearly, "$600m Metro Tax Crisis." Metro Toronto is facing a total tax default rate of $600 million because individuals and businesses just can't pay any more.

Given that you are far and away the biggest tax culprit, that you have intruded on the municipal jurisdiction, that you have continually grabbed, now, $3 billion more of their dollars, I submit that your government deserves the bulk of the blame. It's an inescapable conclusion. You have broken the tax camel's back. You have done that.

I would ask you the same question: Will you finally see the light? Will you acknowledge that you've got the message and will you bring in some targeted tax relief to take the burden off the people of this province of Ontario and give Ontarians a chance to get on the path to a real and lasting recovery? Will you provide tax relief for the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I, of course, expect the honourable member to blame this government for everything that happens, for everything that walks, but one thing I want to make very clear: When he says that I and this government are the straw that broke the tax Campbell's back, I want to say to the honourable member, that is something which will be settled on Monday and it'll be the people of Canada who will decide what to do with the tax Campbell. That's who will decide what to do with the tax Campbell. The tax Campbell is up in Ottawa.

If the honourable member doesn't realize it, I will have to remind him of it time and again. He has not been fair and I can't understand why. Given the support that I know exists in his caucus for the Reform Party, I'm surprised that he is not as vigorous in his understanding of what has happened to this province as a result of the leadership of the federal Conservative Party.

I can't understand how a leader in this province would not recognize just the extent of the unfairness and the extent of the tax burden that's been placed on us, and the extent of the neglect that we've had to fight against and live with in the face of the deepest recession, which we are now coming out of, since the 1930s.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I will be watching on the 25th. We'll see how Audrey McLaughlin fares. Maybe that will answer some questions for the Premier as well.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question as well is to the Premier. Recently, Ontarians were saddened by the senseless shooting of a police officer. As you know, one of the suspects was on provincial parole. The outrage that has followed has been directed at many sources, including your government and at a parole system that many Ontarians believe is failing us.

According to Metro police, 1,269 charges had been laid in Metro in the first eight months of this year against persons while on parole. Many police and citizens believe that public safety is at risk. What have you done to address this serious situation?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As the honourable member knows, the parole system in this province is at two levels: at the national level and at the provincial level. At the provincial level, we deal with people who are sentenced to terms of two years less a day or less. Many of the issues he raises deal with very violent offenders, which of course both systems are very concerned about.

In terms of what we are doing about this, there's a growing concern and acknowledgement in this nation that we need to be focussing more on violent crime and on prevention. Let me say that both this government and the federal government have been working on measures that would see us deal with the reasons for --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Christopherson: We continue to get into this and the honourable members want to do more heckling than listening.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The intent of these focuses: One of the primary ones was a recent all-party committee report that came out of the federal government which has drawn a lot of attention in this country, at the provincial level and the federal level, talking about working at the root causes of crime as well as focusing more and more on the violent offenders and on physical assaults and things that are deemed to be of the greatest importance.

I believe that we continue to work with the federal government on these issues so that we're dealing appropriately with the matters at hand.

Mr Harris: I appreciate that the minister is talking about the federal government and working with it, because this morning my office spoke with detectives at Metro police, the bail and parole unit, and they told us that one, not the only but one of their great frustrations is their inability, under federal legislation, to apprehend a parolee who is clearly breaking a condition of his or her parole.

For example, if a convicted sex offender is prohibited from being in the presence of an unaccompanied minor as a condition of his parole, an officer cannot arrest him if he or she sees him in that violation. The Metro police services has recommended that the legislation be amended to address this. You ought to be aware that there have been attempts in the federal House over the last year to make those changes to the legislation. I would ask you, will you endorse these changes to the federal legislation and lobby the federal government on behalf of those who feel this change is necessary for the police to be able to do their job?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm certainly aware of the issue the honourable member raises. I believe that it was also a recommendation contained in an inquest jury's recommendations. We are now looking at that recommendation. We are obviously taking into account the significant opinions of agencies such as Metro police and other police agencies, as well as victims' groups across the province, and we will be responding to that recommendation in the time frame set out.

Mr Harris: Every time we ask this minister a question it's: "We're studying it. We're looking at it." This has been going on for over a year now. We've been crying out for provincial action and support and there has been none. There's been silence.

Premier, my caucus task force on crime, justice and community safety has been travelling the province over the past few months. One of the things we've been consistently hearing is that bail and parole practices pose a threat to the public by allowing convicted criminals out of jail without adequate screening and without adequate supervision. The frustrations of police are evidence and unfortunately the shooting of the Sudbury officer is proof.

Minister, yesterday you said you didn't have the legal authority to place a moratorium on all early releases until we can get a closer look at the parole system, but you clearly have the right, and I suggest to you the obligation, to offer an advisory opinion on behalf of your government and the people of this province, indicating that you and your government agree with me that it is not in the interest of public safety that our parole board continue to grant early release to those individuals responsible for crimes involving violence. Will you make that statement now pending the completion of the board's decision to release Clinton Suzack?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think we all take the issue of this matter very seriously. It's touched the hearts of all Ontarians, I believe.

On seeing and hearing the questions that have been raised around this, the honourable member knows that I've responded with an immediate review of this decision so that we here in this place, as well as the public, can have some assurance as to whether or not the procedures that are there were followed, that those procedures are appropriate. Then when we have those determinations, when we have the answers to those questions, if indeed it's necessary to take the appropriate steps, we will take them.

I believe that is the appropriate action to take, and I believe it will ultimately lead to the right kinds of changes if we need to make them, or to answer to the public the questions that they deserve to have answered.

MENINGITIS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The Minister of Health knows, as I asked her yesterday, about the two young people who died last week in the region of Peel, allegedly from meningitis. There are still some examinations being undertaken, but apparently there is certainly a meningitis scare in Peel region.

I asked a question yesterday in the hope that there might have been a minister's statement. I thought that at the very least there might be a minister's statement today from the Minister of Health on this issue.

Dr Peter Cole, the medical officer of health in the region of Peel, and his staff are doing everything they can to keep things calm, but in fairness to them, it's not working. Your own provincial medical officer of health has met with local officials. In spite of the best efforts of all these people, parents and students in the region of Peel are very close to panic.

Minister, I have to tell you that this is not a partisan issue, but you have done nothing and you continue to do nothing. On behalf of the public health officials in Peel and on behalf of all the citizens of Peel, will you clarify how the vaccine will be made available by your government, when it will be available to family physicians, and who will pay for this vaccine? Will you further ensure that any patient who needs and wants this vaccine will have access to it immediately?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member that I know very well how very worrying and serious the situation is and how people in the region of Peel are feeling and that they are concerned about it. I was very glad that there had in fact been adequate briefing and communication by the chief medical officer of health of the province as well as of Peel, and I understand some of the local members took advantage of the opportunity to meet with officials and get the information earlier today. I hoped that might have helped to clarify the questions the member was concerned about.

Let me say to him that the chief medical officer of this province, Dr Richard Schabas, as well as the medical officer for Peel, have been involved from the immediate identification of this issue in protecting the public health of the people of Peel. On their advice, anybody who is at risk is being vaccinated and has the vaccine made available to them.

The people in Peel who are concerned have a hotline where they can phone and get information with respect to whether or not they should feel they are at risk, and if the medical officers of health, who are the people with responsibility for protecting the health of all of us, believe they are at risk, then the vaccine is available to them.

Mr Mahoney: I would have thought that as the Minister of Health, you would accept some responsibility for protecting the health of the people of this province. Today at Peel regional headquarters, there was a demonstration by several hundred young people who were wearing masks and bandannas to demonstrate their fear when they go to school. They were holding up banners and they were demonstrating, calling for this vaccine to be made available.

The issue is not what Dr Cole or Dr Schabas is doing; they are doing their jobs, and I frankly think they're doing a good job. The issue is, what are you doing?

Clearly, if the medical officer of health calls for a vaccine to be made available, it is provided. If a family physician requires that the vaccine be made available, it is not provided by your government, it is not paid for by OHIP; it is left up to everybody to fend for themselves. The message is very disconcerting.

Minister, you have a frown. It's the facts. I've talked to doctors, I've talked to parents, I've talked to students, and the question is, will you make it available?

You have said here, in the Toronto Sun, "Ruth Grier says OHIP will pay for meningitis shots for students outside the affected schools only if a local" --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: If these people aren't concerned, we had two young people die in Peel region, and I'm concerned about it.

The Speaker: Could the member please complete his question.

Mr Mahoney: The minister has said that OHIP will pay for meningitis shots for students outside the affected schools only if a medical officer of health recommends the shots. Minister, we need some leadership. Will you ensure that the vaccine is made available to family physicians, that it will be paid for under OHIP if it is recommended by a family physician, and will you make a statement in this House today about your government's clear leadership on this very, very serious issue?

Hon Mrs Grier: I take great exception to the allegation that there has not been leadership and in fact direct involvement in this situation by the Ministry of Health. The chief medical officer of the province, Dr Schabas, is an official of my ministry, and it is on his recommendations that I act. His recommendation is that anybody who is at risk get the vaccine.

I have to say to the honourable member that there are many people in Peel who are frightened. Let me say to him that my grandson is in a public school in Peel, and I am frightened that he might be put at risk in this situation.

But I think the situation is not helped by acknowledging or encouraging the widespread vaccination of people who are not identified as being at risk, and the responsibility for identifying that risk lies with the officials who are charged with that responsibility. It is their advice that I seek; it is their advice that I follow.

Anybody else in Peel who is concerned needs to talk to their family physician, and if the family physician believes that patients are at risk, they can be referred to the chief medical officer of health.

If the family wishes to have the vaccination but is not considered to be at risk, then they can proceed through their family doctor to have that prescribed, and yes, they will pay for it themselves or their drug plan will pay for it.

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, you will be aware that an American show entitled A Current Affair will air a program on October 26 about the deaths of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, and the program will also deal in detail with the manslaughter trial of Karla Teale.

On October 26, Canadians are going to have an opportunity to learn the horrific details of a trial that was under a publication ban and currently is. This not only affects the integrity of our justice system, but also the lives of the families of the victims, who will suffer revictimization as a result of this program.

My question to you is simply this: Have you or members of your ministry staff taken the time to contact the victims' families to determine if Mary Garofalo, the interviewer, and her team from A Current Affair misrepresented their activities and wilfully broke the law and your publication ban while they were in Ontario and obtained interviews under false pretence in order to even have such a horrific story to put on the air in one week?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Officials in my ministry have certainly been monitoring the activity that we have learned about, and certainly when the show was attempting to get interviews with a wide variety of people, including reporters and television commentators who were allowed into the trial, we were made aware of that.

The ministry was taking what it felt were appropriate measures to try and persuade people to be very wary in terms of the publication ban. We are very, very conscious of the real difficulty for the families around this issue and the very serious jeopardy in which we find our criminal justice system. We certainly are attempting to do what we can.

As for me, no, I have not been in touch with the families and that was not considered to be appropriate.

Mr Jackson: As the chief lawmaker in this province as the Attorney General, I would like you to receive -- and the Premier -- personal letters which the families gave me today to give to you so they can express to you their concerns in this regard. I think you are losing an opportunity as the minister responsible here to examine all aspects of this case.

I have within the hour received four pages of the crib notes used by Mary Garofalo to do her show. It is clear to me on the face of these notes that she fully intended not to deal with the story of serial killer cards but to expose and to flaunt your publication ban.

If you were doing your job, Minister, you would know that this team while in Ontario hired a sound man from Toronto who during the course of the interview was so distraught at the facts around this case that he broke down and the interview had to be stopped momentarily. If you were doing your job, you'd be trying to find out if the A Current Affair team was successful in their offer of money to both Bernardo and Teale.

Minister, I ask you, as we have expressed on this side of the House, we want you to do your job. We want your ministry staff to do thorough investigations of these matters and --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- not to necessarily point a finger at what is perhaps limiting your capacity. There are opportunities within our laws that they came to this province, wilfully broke our laws, misrepresented themselves and now may put in jeopardy a very important trial to Ontarians and Ontario victims.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member has made some very serious accusations, and obviously those accusations will be investigated. When he makes these kinds of comments about people wilfully breaking the law and wilfully doing this and that, he speaks as though he is investigator, judge and jury. Quite frankly, that's not appropriate in our legal system.

We are consistently investigating on this issue. We have been very, very firm on this issue. We have very severe difficulties. I have spoken of those before in this House, about controlling what goes on in terms of cross-jurisdictional publications, an issue with which the member is surely well acquainted, given his seeming belief on his own private member's bill that we can put a fence around publications in Ontario, knowing very well that we cannot.

It is very, very difficult in the midst of an investigation when the show has not yet been broadcast. He may have copies of crib notes and I'm not sure where he obtained them and I'm not sure that our investigators don't have them, but I can tell him that we are monitoring very carefully what is going on and if in fact there is a breach, it will be handled very, very severely.

The Speaker: The Minister of Health with a reply to a question asked earlier.

HEALTH CARDS

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Yesterday the member for Simcoe West raised an example in this House of an individual who had received two OHIP cards. I expressed my concern and undertook to investigate the incident.

Let me tell him that, as I can find out, an individual lost her wallet and went to the ministry's office on Yonge Street to get a replacement card. When the card did not arrive within a specified period of time, the person again contacted OHIP to report the card stolen and to ask for another card. An error was made. The additional request did not go in indicating that it was a follow-up.

On September 8 the individual was issued a card which had the version code PN. On September 12 a second card was issued with a different version code, ER. The card with the ER version code is the only valid one. It supersedes the earlier one at the time of issuance.

I understand the individual has spoken to staff of the ministry and has been advised that only the card with the ER version code is the valid one.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I thought the minister would answer the question. My first question yesterday was: Given that 12.5 million health cards have been put into circulation since 1990 when the health card system was introduced and we have a population of 10.5 million, I wanted to know where the extra million and a half health cards are and whether they are accounted for. None the less, she chose to answer a different part of that question.

With respect to this case, as a follow-up and as research behind the question I asked, we tried to get through to the OHIP verification line you've set up in Toronto. I couldn't get through to that number, so we contacted the office in Owen Sound. The OHIP office in Owen Sound confirmed that this is the third time in as many weeks that two cards have been issued to a person who simply asked for one replacement card.

You know that the more cards are out there in circulation, given the current state of your database, the greater the potential for fraud in this province. What are you doing specifically to ensure that when people simply apply for one replacement card, you're not sending them two cards within two days? Those extra cards out there, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, can be used by people who are dishonest.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mrs Poole, who brought this to our attention, was an honest person and she reported this. What about the hundreds of thousands of people out there --

The Speaker: The question's been asked. Would the member take his seat, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: I worry for the member's blood pressure, but I'm happy to be able to tell him that as a result of the efforts of this government in trying to cope with an inappropriate database and an inappropriate card system, 1.8 million cards have in fact been cancelled. So we are making some progress.

But I want to say to him, I agree with him. One error of the kind that I've outlined is too many. I'm also happy to be able to tell him that by the end of November, the system will be in place that will ensure that no replacement cards will be issued unless the request is accompanied by a completed application and original documents verifying residency.

Those are the kinds of steps we're taking. We are succeeding. There is more to be done. I acknowledge it and I look forward to working constructively with the member as we have ongoing discussions about this issue.

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Attorney General, the minister responsible for women's issues. For many months now, my colleagues and I have been pressing your government to release the report into sexual abuse at the Grandview school. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has said the report can be released. The Divisional Court of Ontario has said the report can be released. We now read in the Toronto Star that your government is arguing on appeal that the report cannot be released because it could harm provincial officials named in it.

The Grandview survivors want the report released. They want to know that justice will be done. They want to know that your government wants justice to be done. Minister, I ask, how can you, as Attorney General, minister responsible for women's issues, justify further victimizing these women in the name of protecting government officials?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I do not. That last line in that

article surprised me as well, and I have asked what that argument was all about. The major part of the article, the whole column, was about our concerns around this report being released and destroying the possibility of a successful investigation and a successful prosecution in this case.

The member has recycled this question again and again. We have been very clear that we were going to appeal the decision. We are appealing it. We are appealing it on the grounds that it is not going to assist us in ensuring that there is a successful prosecution in this case, which is, as I would remind the member yet again, the only way in which we can ensure justice is done for those who may have been victimized at Grandview.

Mrs McLeod: I recycle the question because I simply cannot understand yet why this government refuses to act in light of the fact that both the freedom of information commissioner and the courts have said that the report can be released without jeopardizing the investigation.

This government has said in the past that it would never cover up the truth in order to protect those in power. I truly believe, as I ask this question yet again, that on this matter this government has violated those principles.

On October 1, Will Ferguson himself called on his government to release this report. He said: "I think the report should be released. The perception is that the NDP government is hiding something."

Minister, by continuing to suppress this report, you are doubly victimizing these women who are already victims. I believe it is completely unacceptable to go beyond what the courts have said is necessary in order to protect government officials.

I ask you once again: Will you not allow the Grandview report to be released, as the courts have said it may be? Will you not give these women what they are asking for?

Hon Mrs Boyd: This matter, even as we speak, is in front of the courts. It is up to the Court of Appeal to make a decision in this case.

I have taken the position that I have taken precisely to ensure that prosecutions are able to proceed and that in fact we will come to the bottom of the truth. For this member to suggest that this government -- this government -- has anything to protect, as opposed to the two previous governments, is a joke. We have nothing to protect. We are trying to get to the bottom of the truth. We are investigating. We are prosecuting. Where were you for five years?

MENINGITIS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, the same medical officer of health in the province today, Dr Schabas, made a different decision regarding how to treat cases of meningitis --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga South, my apologies. I cannot hear the question, nor can the Minister of Health.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I hope I'll get my sup from all that noise.

Minister, your medical officer of health, Dr Schabas, made a different decision last year in the Ottawa-Carleton situation regarding the same number of cases with meningitis than he has made today in the region of Peel with Dr Cole. My parents and my students want to know: What is different between the region of Peel, on a region basis, and Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I can't speak to that as a non-physician, but as I am aware, the number of cases has not been in fact as many in the region of Peel. This is a situation that is monitored very, very carefully. We have been fortunate in this province that the incidence of meningitis has been decreasing. It is usually isolated cases, and the number of cases that have occurred in Peel is cause for concern.

I can assure the member that we will be monitoring it continually, and should the situation change or should it appear that the risk is greater, any decision that is made will be revisited constantly.

Mrs Marland: Madam Minister, you should be able to speak to that because, I want to tell you, a publication that is being handed out today in Peel does not say what you just said. This publication says: "Ontario has experienced an increase in meningococcal disease since 1986 [with] several clusters occurring as described below. Since 1989 the increase has been observed in school-age children and teens."

This is what is being handed out today in the region of Peel. This is why the parents and the students in Peel are saying, "Why inoculate three high schools in the educational environment and ignore the fact that within those schools they intermingle with students from other schools in the immediate area?"

In my area of Mississauga South we have six high schools, including the separate high schools, and we have the separate board, with their students playing hockey and sports and socializing, and your medical officer of health and their medical officer of health seem to ignore that after school, these students still get together.

The Speaker: Would the member place her question, please.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I'm asking you on behalf of these parents and students if you will, first of all, have the same standard in Peel as Dr Schabas, the medical officer of health, made for Ottawa-Carleton and, secondly, will you pay for that vaccine for all students for whom their own physician prescribes that form of treatment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I would ask the member to be careful about throwing out statistics about various strains of a disease. I think it is commonly accepted that incidents of meningococcal disease in Ontario in the last number of years have declined, but one is too many, as it is with any disease or any fatality.

Mrs Marland: The printed item says that it has increased.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to say to the member that given the extent of the concern and the knowledge, I think everybody in Peel is aware of how careful they need to be and how this can be prevented.

What I am saying to her is that if on the advice of the chief medical officer of this province, anybody is identified as being at risk, they will then get the vaccine. If somebody wishes to meet with their own physician and to discuss with their own physician whether or not they are at risk, if that physician thinks they are at risk and that is confirmed by the medical officer of health, they will get the vaccine. If their own doctor does not think they are at risk but the patient wants to have the vaccine, then it will be a transaction, a visit, a procedure by their doctor in the same way as any other procedure, which is that the patient, unless he has drug coverage, buys his own drug.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

I have signed the petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes;

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that moneys obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into Ontario law."

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We respectfully request that the Legislature of Ontario take action on the matter of Bill 21 to protect people living in mobile homes and living on leased land from being removed from their homes."

I have signed my name in support of this petition.

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER AND WINE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed in its spring budget of 1993 to impose a tax on beer produced by the general public for their own consumption at brew-on-premises facilities in the province of Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, will not accept an attempt to tax our own labour and efforts to make our beer and wine at brew-on-premises facilities for our own consumption.

"Further, we feel this attempt is shortsighted and extremely counterproductive. The brew-on-premises facilities we support contribute to our local and provincial economies and represent the true entrepreneurial spirit which will drive our economic growth in the future."

I support this petition and I've added my name to it.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that moneys obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into Ontario law."

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We respectfully request that the Legislature of Ontario take action on the matter of Bill 21 to protect people living in mobile homes and living on leased lands from being removed from their homes."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payment for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payment should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crime will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and the services for victims of crime;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

CASINOS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly that reads as follows:

"Whereas an MRI is an imaging modality superior to the CAT scan which is particularly useful in diagnosing diseases of the brain, spine and joints;

"Whereas it eliminates the need for other invasive tests and procedures such as angiology and anthroscopy;

"Whereas patients from the Sudbury area have been having MRI examinations in other centres since 1985, when the first unit was installed in Toronto;

"Whereas the MRI scans are now available in all parts of Ontario except northern Ontario -- there are 12 units approved in the province;

"Whereas an MRI is needed to maintain the team of neurosurgeons that have been recruited for the Sudbury area;

"Whereas the approval of a unit for Sudbury is long overdue;

"Whereas Sudbury has been designated the northeastern centre of health;

"We, the undersigned, support the neurosurgeons at the Sudbury General Hospital in their request for a magnetic resonance imaging machine."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and we respectfully request that the Legislature of Ontario take action on the matter of Bill 21 to protect people living in mobile homes and living on leased lands from being removed from their homes."

I have signed my name to this petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payment should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and the services for victims of crime;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

That's signed by a number of residents of the province of Ontario including in my own riding of Don Mills, and I affix my signature to it.

OPP DETACHMENT

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I am bringing forward this petition on behalf my constituents who are concerned about the preservation of law and order in their community. The residents are concerned about an

article that appeared on the front page of the September 28 edition about Brock council wanting to know whether they're going to lose their police station. I've got a resolution from the council dated September 20 calling for this petition to be brought forward:

"Whereas the Beaverton OPP station has been a long-standing, integral part of the Beaverton area; and

"Whereas many officers have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become a strong voice in the community in volunteer and non-profit groups; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides an economic benefit to the Beaverton community and all of Brock township; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario maintain the OPP station in Beaverton, as closure would be detrimental to the interest of security, safety and the wellbeing of all the residents in Brock township."

I have signed my name to this in full support.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized;

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crimes; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I'm very happy to lend my support and sign this petition.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized; and

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I'm pleased to sign this petition on behalf of my constituents, and I certainly extend all the best to my colleague Cam Jackson in the hope that his private member's bill will become law.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition, which reads as follows:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized; and

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and services for victims of crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I fully endorse this petition and have signed it.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas it is the right of every Ontario citizen not to be victimized; and

"Whereas victims of violent crime and their families have a right to be protected against exploitation by criminals who receive payments for their recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas such payments should be dedicated to victims of crime; and

"Whereas private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, will ensure that money obtained by criminals as a result of their recollections of their crimes will be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be applied to the needs of and the services for victims of crime,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government endorse and support fully private member's bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, and ensure its speedy passage into law."

I totally support this petition and have signed it as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF HASTINGS ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Paul Johnson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr52,

An Act respecting the County of Hastings.

COUNTY OF GREY ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Murdoch, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr58,

An Act respecting the County of Grey.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

On motion by Mr Tilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 106,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 106, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any remarks, Mr Tilson?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This bill amends the Workers' Compensation Act as follows:

It replaces the definition of "industrial disease" with a definition of "occupational disease"; stress will be no longer compensable unless it is experienced as a result of an acute reaction to a traumatic event; the maximum compensation payable is reduced from 90% to 80% of the net average earnings of the worker before the injury; top-up provisions in collective agreements that provide compensation to a worker by an employer, in addition to compensation paid under this act, are deemed to be amended so that the total compensation received does not exceed 80% of the worker's net average earnings; a three-day waiting period will be imposed before compensation is payable for accidents.

The bill imposes a restriction on the application of the indexing factor to existing awards made by the board. Indexation will be calculated on the anniversary date of the first payment, rather than on January 1 in each year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

Consideration of Bill 8,

An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Projet de loi 8, Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We were debating

section 6.1. Mr McClelland?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We're still dealing with 6.1, as you indicate, as I moved yesterday.

Not to revisit the matter in great detail, at that time I indicated that the genesis of this particular amendment was largely the result of concerns raised by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Phillips, together with the member for Wilson Heights. I think the amendment is pretty well self-explanatory, although the rationale for it could perhaps be summarized as we pick up from where we were yesterday.

Essentially, the concern we have is the fact that the government has stated throughout the process of discussion of this legislation and the contracts that will be pursuant to the legislation that --

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: I thank the member for Grey very much for his best wishes and compliments.

We're concerned that the government is saying, "Trust us; there's no fear in terms of the taxpayer being on the hook for any resultant operating deficit or costs associated with the operation of the casino."

We in the opposition are saying that if that's the case, put your money where your mouth is and enshrine that in legislation. Make it a deemed part of the contract so that it's absolutely clear from day one for any proponents, whoever they may be, at whatever point in time in the history of casino gambling in the province of Ontario, that the taxpayer at the end of the day will not be responsible for any costs associated with the management or the operation of the casino.

It's fairly evident and it's self-explanatory on that point, and we would hope the government sees its way clear to support this.

I remind you, Mr Chairman, that yesterday as we concluded, after some discussion on this matter, the parliamentary assistant repeatedly said, "Trust us; there's an arrangement," which he subsequently qualified by saying a contractual arrangement, a contractual obligation that has been guaranteed by the government for the specific operation in Windsor.

We're saying that's not good enough. I say very candidly that the public would say that as well. The public, as I watched a town hall meeting last night on the people's network, was saying that it wants politicians to come clean and come straight and say things they can stand by.

If in fact you're prepared to stand by this, I say to my friend the parliamentary assistant, put it in the legislation. Allow the people of Ontario to know that you're prepared to stand by what you say and enshrine it in the legislation.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I believe that when we adjourned just before 6 yesterday, we were still waiting for an answer from the parliamentary assistant as to whether or not he's prepared to give that unequivocal commitment to the people of Ontario that nowhere, under any auspices, under any circumstances, will the debt or liability of any future casino be passed on to the province or the Ontario taxpayer.

We've heard him say very unequivocally that in the Windsor casino project that will not be the case and that there will be an understanding or an agreement that the private operator will be responsible. I believe I've heard him say, but I'm sure he can speak for himself, that there won't ever be a situation in which the Ontario government or taxpayer will be expected to pick up any deficit or liability. If that is so, then why will the government simply not agree to accept the amendment proposed by the member for Brampton North and supported by many people in the Legislature?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Again, I can assure the people of this province that as long as there's a New Democratic Party government, the people of this province will not pick up any operating deficit for the casino in Windsor.

Mr Eves: Will he be agreeing to this amendment then, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Mr Duignan?

Mr Duignan: No.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): The assistant deputy minister at the time, in a question during the committee hearings, when he was asked about whether or not there would be any possibility of the citizens of Ontario being saddled with any losses incurred in the operation of the casino, and notwithstanding the fact that both he and the deputy minister assured us that would not be the case, stated that he did not want it included in the proposal call because it would send the wrong image to the proponents and might be to the detriment of the process.

It would seem to me that this very comment is all the more reason why it should be included in the legislation, and when I say it should be included, I'm referring of course to the amendment proposed by my colleague which states that under no circumstances will the government of Ontario, the Ontario Casino Corp or the taxpayers of Ontario be saddled with any losses incurred as a result of the operation of this or any other casinos.

The question then comes up, why is the government objecting to something that it has unequivocally affirmed? Everybody from the parliamentary assistant to the deputy minister has said that under no circumstances will the citizens of Ontario be obligated to pick up any losses incurred in the operation of the casino. Yet there seems to be a reluctance on the part of the government to safeguard that by enshrining it in the bill.

Yesterday, the parliamentary assistant said that it would be included in any contractual arrangement. Of course, when we talk about contractual arrangements, that automatically implies that for everything that goes in there will probably be some provision so that it can be, under certain circumstances, circumvented. That is what causes me some concern.

Lawyers and politicians have a term they use, and it's called "weasel words." When you get into a situation where you start negotiating these things under a contractual arrangement, it leaves ample opportunities for lawyers on both parts to make sure there is some kind of escape clause or some sort of provision whereby the arrangement can be modified at a later date.

I have but one question to the parliamentary assistant; it has been asked by my colleagues, my colleagues in the third party and me. If this is a principle that you endorse, if it is something that you have assured the people of Ontario will not happen, that there is no circumstance under which the taxpayers of Ontario will be called upon to pick up any shortfall in the operation of this casino, why would you object to having a provision in the bill that states that this is the case? All we're saying is that we have put forward a reasoned amendment, an amendment that is very simple in its concept.

What it says is that under no circumstance will the citizens of Ontario be obligated to pick up any shortfall incurred as a result of the operation of this or any other casino.

It's a simple prospect, it's a particular statement that everybody seems to agree with, yet I have not received a clear and definitive answer from the parliamentary assistant as to why he is not prepared to include it. That is what causes me some concern, because the implication is that if you're not prepared to put it in, then there is the very strong possibility that you're not prepared to stand behind that particular commitment that the citizens of Ontario will not be called upon under any circumstance to pick up a shortfall.

If there is a concern, then I think the parliamentary assistant and the government have an obligation to come clean and to tell the people of Ontario, "There may be a circumstance where in fact we're going to have to come back to the citizens of Ontario and, yes, you are going to have to pick up any shortfall." If that is the case, I think everybody should know about it.

If it isn't the case, and we have been consistently reassured by everybody in authority on the government side that it isn't the case, why would you object to making that a part of the bill and outlining very, very clearly to everybody who is getting involved that this is an operation where the operators have a chance to share in the profits but also have to understand that they're going to have to be solely responsible for any losses? I would welcome the parliamentary assistant's response to that very, very simple concept.

Are the citizens of Ontario going to be on the hook or are they not going to be on the hook? I would ask the parliamentary assistant to respond to that.

Mr Duignan: It's a pity that the honourable member for Wilson Heights was not part of the negotiating team for the SkyDome, because maybe if he were, we wouldn't have the $400-million debt that people of the province have to pay for the SkyDome. But I can tell you right now, that's not the way this government operates. We're going to make sure that the proper legal, binding contract states, and I've said it before, that the proponent will be responsible for any operating deficit of the Windsor casino.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The previous answer that was given by the parliamentary assistant was, at least according to the notes I wrote down: "As long as the New Democratic Party is in power, you can trust us. The government of Ontario, the province of Ontario, will not assume the debt." It's a very glib and cute answer, quite frankly, and I don't think the polls suggest that you're going to continue for another term. But let's assume that you're not. Let's assume the possibility that you're not going to resume for another term.

The only guarantee you can give on this situation, which has been suggested by the member for Brampton North, is that there is an amendment and that you accept the amendment that's been put forward by the member for Brampton North or that you tell us there is a contractual agreement with whoever the operator is that the province of Ontario would not assume any debt. Of course, you're then going to say that there's an arrangement. You mentioned yesterday that there's an arrangement. I don't know what that means legally, as to what an arrangement is as to this specific issue.

It brings to mind the lack of trust that's developed particularly since your party has come to power. It's fine for you to talk about the Dome. Whether you're talking of the Conservatives, the Liberals or the New Democratic Party, we're talking about the trust of the people of Ontario. Quite frankly, when you look at the subject of the Dome, which you've raised, when you look at the topic of Teranet, that wonderful topic which we've raised in the past, which I've raised in the past, there is a genuine fear, particularly when a government enters into a partnership arrangement, which I suspect you're suggesting is going on in this province with respect to gambling casinos.

You're going to enter into a partnership arrangement with an operator, and of course we saw what happened at Teranet. As you know, the issue with Teranet is a situation where the province of Ontario was going to computerize the land registry system, an admirable position to take. The difficulty is that you won't tell anybody who is with that corporation, Teranet, who is going to be in partnership, or what the financial arrangements are.

In fact, in that particular contract that's exactly what happened. The province of Ontario guaranteed the debts of Teranet, the partnership with Teranet. That's the very thing the member for Brampton North is trying to avoid, that if you get into that situation, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pick up the tab for a goof that's been made by an operator you have no control over. Of course, then you're going to plead, "Oh well, you can't see the agreement with the operator because of the privacy legislation."

The problem is that we have no idea of this guarantee that the province of Ontario will not pick up the tab. The taxpayer in fact will be left holding the bag for this debt, a debt that conceivably will happen, particularly if you get a gambling casino in Detroit, particularly if you get a gambling casino around the outskirts of Windsor. That's a possibility as well, but more likely it will be a gambling casino in Detroit. You're dreaming, you're simply dreaming if you think that it's going to be a success.

It's a genuine fear, particularly with the lack of studies that was revealed as a result of the committee process. My goodness, there was one study that you commissioned after the whole project was under way. The one day I sat there, Coopers and Lybrand or whoever it was showed up to present its report, an hour-long report that had been commissioned after the whole project was under way. I must say there's a great deal of scepticism --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Yes, you're right. It doesn't matter, but the fact of the matter is you retained --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): You got the wrong name.

Mr Tilson: I apologize if I got the wrong name, but the fact of the matter is that you retained a consultant after the decisions had already been made. That is the problem with the whole project. You should have been investigating many of these matters before the project even got going. However, we're now into it, and it's unfortunate we're into it, because we don't really know where we're going.

One of the fears we have is this particular fear that it's going to fail. If it's going to fail, if the government isn't going to be operating it, if you're going to be allowing a private operator to carry on with this process, I think it's fair for the taxpayers to understand that the province of Ontario won't be picking up the tab for a goof that's been made by a private operator. There's no reason for that to take place.

The arrangement answer that you give is simply inadequate, the answer that simply says: "Trust us. There's been an arrangement undertaken." I don't know what "arrangement" means, and until you tell us about that or whether that's in fact a contract and how long that contract lasts -- I mean, is the contract for the duration of this government? This government eventually will fail, and I suspect that will be in 1995, and at that time we may or may not have a gambling casino that's run up an unbelievable debt.

Are you going to leave office with this unbelievable debt for the next government, whether it be the Liberal Party or whether it be the Conservative Party -- in fact the taxpayer of Ontario -- to pay off?

It's simply irresponsible for you to stand in this House and simply say: "Trust us. There's an arrangement." That's inexcusable, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, and I would hope that you would rise in your place and properly answer the member for Brampton North that you'll be pleased to support this amendment because of its sound purpose.

Mr Kwinter: The parliamentary assistant made a comment after my last intervention in which he said it was too bad that I wasn't sitting on the committee that approved the SkyDome, because if I were, the problems the Skydome now has may not have happened. I think that all that really does is highlight the problem. He's absolutely right, and we should be learning from our mistakes. To suggest that because it didn't happen with the SkyDome it probably shouldn't happen with the casino is kind of bizarre reasoning.

I would suggest that it's obvious, from the many responses from the parliamentary assistant to my particular comments and the comments of my colleagues both in my caucus and in the third party, that the government does not intend to enshrine this in the legislation.

So I would like to take a slightly different tack and I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant, if you're not going to do it, could you tell us why you don't want to do it? What is your concern with making sure that this is put into the legislation? There must be a reason, because -- and I say this, I think, with some certainty -- any reasonable person watching this debate, hearing what the issue is, would say, "Why not?"

Everybody agrees that this is the intent of what the government's plan is, that the taxpayers of Ontario will not be at risk. Why would you not include it in the legislation? There must be a reason. Otherwise, as it happened to me, to my surprise, in committee, I made a couple of suggestions and they were accepted immediately.

Mr Duignan: Don't you think I'm a good guy?

Mr Kwinter: I know you're a good guy. I can't believe it. I made a couple of suggestions. You wouldn't even let me make the argument. You said: "Okay, we agree. Okay, done."

But we now have a situation, when there is a proposition that seems to be so eminently reasonable, that we include in the legislation provisions that prevent the taxpayers of Ontario from undergoing any obligation of losses in the operation of a casino, that I don't see how anybody could argue that, yet we have the parliamentary assistant, representing the government position, refusing to include it in the legislation.

Again I ask you, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, what is your problem with that particular inclusion? What is the reason that you are resisting what seems to me to be an eminently reasonable amendment?

Mr Duignan: I always seem to be going over and over this argument for the last couple of hours in committee of the whole. Again, as I said, we feel that this type of arrangement is better handled through a business contract between the proponent and the government and that's simply the best way to go.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Just to continue the debate on the motion, just so everyone I think understands what we're dealing with here, we're talking about playing potentially with hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. Every one of these casinos will cost, according to the testimony we heard, $200 million to $300 million to construct, and my judgement is that we're going to be seeing seven or eight of these things around the province in the next three or four years, with an enormous outlay of expenditures.

I think the public demands that they not be finally on the hook for the costs of this operation. I think the public demands that they not be the ones finally paying the bill on this.

I agree with my colleague earlier, surely we've learned that from the SkyDome experience. We've got a wonderful facility in SkyDome and it's an enormous asset for particularly the people of Metropolitan Toronto, but in the end, several months after the new government came in, the province wrote off around $300 million of SkyDome debt. So if there's any --

Mr Huget: Well, who incurred the debt, Gerry? Where were you?

Mr Phillips: There's someone heckling. If there's any reason why this should be in the legislation, there it is. I cannot for the life of me understand why the NDP is stonewalling on this thing. What are you hiding? Why will you not put it in here? The more you resist it, the more suspicious, I hope, the public get; certainly the more suspicious I get.

We had testimony at the committee. The staff said: "Listen, we'll tell you we'll include this in the contract. We have no difficulty in including it in the contract. So just trust us. We'll put it in the contract. None of this bothers us, but we don't want it in the legislation. Just trust us to put it in the contract." Well, I don't buy that. If you're saying you will put it in every contract, why won't you put it in the legislation?

I hope the people who are watching this debate are getting as angry as I'm getting at the answers, because people are no longer prepared to simply accept: "Trust me. I know best." If that's what you intend, there is no reason why it can't be in the legislation; if it isn't what you intend, then let's get it out in the open.

We had testimony at the hearings from a Mr Alfieri, who is probably the most knowledgeable person in the staff dealing with it, again saying we have no trouble with this. "I think we are very much in concurrence with the proposed amendment," he said. "The difficulty we have is to enshrine in legislation and engrave in stone," because we think this sends a "very, very negative message." That's what the testimony says.

While we believe this is exactly what we're going to do, we don't want to tell anybody who may bid on this, because it sends a very, very negative message. So what's going on here? The people who bid on these contracts, you don't want to tell them that this is what you have in mind because they may think this is a very, very negative message.

Well, I say to ourselves and the people of Ontario, if this is what we intend, let's get it on the table. That's precisely the reason for the amendment. I want people who bid on t