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

April 17, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-17 (PDF)

L043 - Mon 17 Apr 2000 / Lun 17 avr 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ADVANCE WARNING LIGHT

JOB CREATION

STUDENT AWARD PROGRAM

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

BETHESDA HOUSE

HEALTH CARE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY 407 AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

SAFE STREETS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SCHOOL TEACHERS

HOME CARE

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

CANCER TREATMENT

TEACHER TESTING

HIGHWAY 407

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

FORENSIC TESTING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ENERGY COMPETITION

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

PETITIONS

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

BETASERON

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SCHOOL CLOSURE

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

SOINS À DOMICILE

WETLAND

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

GAMING CONTROL

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ABORTION

OPPOSITION DAY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to protest the discrimination against working parents being practised by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Working parents already pay a lot for day care. A recent directive by the ministry stated that working parents have a limit of $5,000 on their RRSP contributions to qualify for a spot in a day care. This measure is a blatant, unfair discrimination against parents who do not have company pensions. The assumption is that if you make any kind of RRSP contribution, then you must be wealthy. The overwhelming majority of working parents who have their children in day care are not wealthy; that's why they are both working.

For many parents the RRSP contribution is their pension plan. Many of them are making RRSP contributions because they are self-employed or work for a small business. They have to take their future into their own hands in these situations, and the RRSP is the only real retirement plan they have available to them. Making these contributions when they can is a key element in planning for the future security of their family. Now they are being forced to make a decision because the government in essence is saying, "You have too much," when in fact these parents are just getting by.

I have to ask myself why the government would put working parents in such a predicament. Most parents choose what is best for their children. Why should they be put in the position of having to do this at the expense of their own future? Wouldn't it be more productive to put in place a scheme that allows parents who have kids in day care to be able to plan for their future while their children are in day care?

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): With so much of the opposition's rhetoric and negative reaction to some of the positive announcements of this government in respect to health issues, I am pleased to see the hospitals of York region applauding the recent announcement of $20 million invested in child mental health made by the minister responsible for children, the Honourable Margaret Marland. The four-point plan includes funds for intensive child and family intervention services provided in homes and schools, new mobile crisis response teams and telepsychiatry.

York County Hospital played an active role in assisting the ministry in outlining and determining which services are needed. Dr Jennifer Steadman, chief of psychiatry at York County Hospital, stated that the hospital has always been on the leading edge of this field. The hospital was a pioneer in child mental health, initiating a mobile crisis service 12 years ago. This service has been instrumental in reaching children who have been suicidal or suffering depression due to abuse, and meeting them directly in their schools and homes.

The success of York County's program in behaviour disturbances and the dedication of its staff has led the Health Services Restructuring Commission to single out the hospital as a regional centre for child and adolescent mental health. Through this announcement by the minister, the centre, which will include in-patient beds, will receive the required operating funding.

This additional $20 million invested in child mental health services will ensure programs are provided locally to our community by skilled practitioners.

ADVANCE WARNING LIGHT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Well over three years ago, the Minister of Transportation agreed to install an advance warning light at Balsam Street on the Thunder Bay Expressway. Installed on a three-year pilot project basis, the decision to put it in place came about as a result of a long and intense campaign by citizen groups, the OPP and various area municipalities. The three-year pilot is now complete, and the success of the warning light has been amply proven. Accidents are down, and we have not seen a single fatality since the light was installed.

While I understand that the ministry has now completed a thorough analysis of the results and is working on its conclusions, I want to use this opportunity to urge the minister to make it official: Let my constituents know that the warning light system will stay in place and in fact will be upgraded to a solid, permanent structure. Public safety will be well served by such an announcement, as would an extension of the system all along the expressway.

In addition, I am calling on the minister to look seriously at the use of warning or flashing lights at other dangerous sections of our northern highway system. Highway 17 at Dublin Creek has seen far too many accidents in the last year, and a dangerous

section just east of Terrace Bay has seen four accidents in the last month or so.

While I would encourage the ministry to look at correcting the road design flaws at these sections, in the interim I would also suggest that flashing lights as you approach these sections should be seriously considered. Warning lights are an extraordinarily inexpensive way to improve public safety. We should not be hesitant to put them in place when they can indeed save lives.

JOB CREATION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Five years ago, Mike Harris was preparing to fight an election based on the promises outlined in the Common Sense Revolution. One of those promises stated that the first five years of a PC government would witness the creation of 725,000 net new jobs in the province. Our critics said we were just making empty promises, but there have already been 701,000 net new jobs created in the province as of April 1, 2000.

Among our critics was Gerry Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. Mr Phillips told the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on December 5, 1996, "We're not going to come close in jobs." Mr Phillips said in a Focus Ontario interview in February 1997: "The payoff is not there. The jobs they promised are not being created." He also said at that time: "I think the cut in personal income tax is a mistake. It is ... creating a dampening effect on the economy and a dampening effect on jobs." He repeated this allegation frequently.

Lately, even Mr Phillips has become a believer in Mike Harris. He's talking now about possible labour shortages.

We are delivering on our job promises. We will take steps to protect against labour shortages, but leave it to a Liberal to make an issue out of too many jobs. Liberals believe it is the government's role to run the economy, not manage it. They didn't get it in 1995, they don't get it now, and they have once again proven that they are just not up to the job.

STUDENT AWARD PROGRAM

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): Last week, our Lieutenant Governor, Hilary Weston, made a very significant visit to Emery Collegiate Institute, located in my riding of York West. The Emery Collegiate community and all of us in York West were most grateful that Her Honour took this special occasion to announce and launch the Lieutenant Governor's new award for graduating students.

Congratulations to Zabrina Babbington, the grade 13 Emery Collegiate student who is the first student selected to receive the inaugural award for her outstanding voluntary efforts in our community. We and the Emery Collegiate community are all proud of Zabrina's exemplary contribution. As a high school student, Zabrina offered her time and energy as a hospital volunteer, youth magazine editor, Sunday school teacher and youth counsellor. Zabrina stands as an excellent example for her classmates and the entire Emery Collegiate student body of the enormous potential young people have to truly make a difference and enrich the lives of others with their vitality and social consciousness.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to and commend our Lieutenant Governor for her commitment to honouring the contribution and spirit of our young students. In launching this award program, she is truly championing the causes of our youth and our volunteers.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House and particularly the Attorney General the fiasco that is now unfolding at the Family Responsibility Office. Most members would know that for the better part of four or five years now, we've been having increasingly more difficulty trying to get answers for constituents when it comes to their payment schedules as it relates to their support payments.

The latest one, as we learned a couple of weeks ago, is that the government has decided to introduce user fees for those people needing to have information in regard to their particular claim. Now we've got people coming into our offices trying to get information to fix the mess that the government caused in the first place, and they're being told they have to pay a user fee to get that information.

Just last week, Thursday and Friday, the days that I was in the office-we had at least five people come by on Friday who were trying to get information for statements of claim having to do with mess-ups that were created by the Family Responsibility Office. I say to the government, you can't be doing this kind of practice, because what you're doing is penalizing the people who are honest and are trying to deal with their claims and making them pay some kind of user fee.

The other issue is that you've closed the access to members' offices. We used to be able to get the information free of charge for our constituents, but now because of this user fee, people in your department are telling us that the constituent has to pay for that information. We ask you to reverse your policy because, frankly, it's stupid.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I believe I have successfully decoded the relationship between the federal and provincial Liberal caucuses. You know, it's like decoding the enigma machine.

Members will know about the long overdue completion of the Red Hill Creek Expressway, which this government is finding, has been delayed once again, this time by the direct intervention of Sheila Copps, who pressured her federal cabinet colleague to subject the project to yet another environmental assessment. Although the Leader of the Opposition, Mr McGuinty, has refused to make any direct attempt to get the federal government to stop this intervention in a purely municipal-provincial matter, he has said publicly that he believes the necessary environmental approvals have been obtained and that construction should start immediately.

But my revelations came to me clearly last week when I saw that federal Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal declined to order a federal environmental assessment of the 407 extension into my riding of Durham. I know this is something my riding and all of the elected officials have been working for. However, Minister Dhaliwal made his decision, despite the fact that the member for St Catharines had expressed his support for groups seeking to bring about such a federal intervention.

What these two examples seem to prove is that, at least on transportation issues, the federal Liberals are inclined to do exactly the opposite of what their provincial relations seem to want. Perhaps if the member from Hamilton East were to endorse the federal environmental assessment of the expressway, Herb Dhaliwal would swoop down in his helicopter and free the people of Hamilton-Wentworth from the extensive and unnecessary duplication of a process that has already been completed.

BETHESDA HOUSE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's interesting that I get to follow on some more fed-bashing from the member for Durham. Mr O'Toole talks about the federal government while the Bethesda House shelter in Bowmanville for abused women and children is at risk of closing due to a lack of flexibility by the Harris government.

In 1995, Bethesda House, whose planning was well underway, got caught in a funding cap by that member's government and, just as they were prepared to open, were told that they would receive no operational funding. This morning, the Clarington town council passed the following resolution, which I'll read:

"Now therefore

be it resolved that the council of the municipality of Clarington appeal to the Honourable Michael D. Harris, Premier of Ontario, that the services which Bethesda House provides to the residents of Clarington and Durham region be recognized and that provincial funding be established to allow for operating costs of Bethesda House to be able to continue to operate and serve the community."

For years, local citizens in that community, service organizations, the municipality of Clarington and the region of Durham have been providing funding for this organization. Regrettably, notwithstanding the fact that over 900 people have been served by it, women and children suffering from abuse, this centre which provides essential services in Bowmanville is slated to close. While the member engages in yet another round of fed-bashing, this very important organization in his riding suffers from his absence of work on their behalf.

I'd encourage all members of the House to talk to the Minister of Community and Social Services to see that Bethesda House in Bowmanville receives funding from the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd like to clarify the record that I have worked for Bethesda House since before I was elected in 1995.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of privilege.

HEALTH CARE

Mr David Young (Willowdale): In keeping with the NHL playoff theme that has inspired so many members recently, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that amazing feats of gymnastics are not confined to the goal creases of the Air Canada Centre.

Why, right here in the Ontario Legislature last week we witnessed a move that was worthy of a Curtis Joseph or even a young Gary Carr. On Thursday, Liberal members opposite supported the resolution of the member for Waterloo-Wellington calling on the Chrétien Liberals to reverse federal cuts to Ontario's health care system, yet less than 24 hours earlier, the same caucus opposed a similar resolution sponsored by the Premier.

Their refusal to support the same principle simply because it appeared above the Premier's name was a high stick to their own credibility on the issue of federal health care cuts. "Partisanship" was sewn on their jerseys that day, while the principle of speaking up for the people of Ontario and their health care got left behind in the dressing room. The federal Liberals are acting like the Broad Street Bullies when it comes to dealing with the provinces on health care.

Our government has a plan to improve health care, a plan that includes stable multi-year funding, a plan that will ensure results. The federal government's plan is to high-stick and elbow Canadians out of their health care. If I were the referee, I would have no choice but to give the Ontario Liberals five minutes for taking a dive and the federal Liberals a game misconduct for slashing.

VISITORS

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to acknowledge two OAC classes that have driven in from St Christopher's high school in Sarnia-Lambton.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That's not a point of order, but we welcome our guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY 407 AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

Mr Bisson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Highway 407 Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'autoroute 407.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): This bill attempts to fix the mess that was created by the Highway 407 bill that gives the private owner of Highway 407 the ability to pull the validation sticker from an automobile in the event that there is non-payment of a bill. We know there's a deep problem within that organization in getting their bills out. There are all kinds of people who are having their validation stickers withdrawn inappropriately, and we don't believe that's a good principle to be following for a private corporation.

SAFE STREETS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

Mr Crozier moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities of legitimate charities / Projet de loi 64, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1999 sur la sécurité dans les rues et le Code de la route pour reconnaître les activités de financement des organismes de bienfaisance légitimes.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The member for a short statement.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): The bill amends the Safe Streets Act, 1999, to provide that the prohibition in subsection 3(2) of the act does not apply to fundraising activities that are conducted by registered charities and are in addition permitted by municipal bylaws. A similar amendment is made to

section 177 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to give second and third reading to Mr Crozier's bill right now.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, my understanding was that the Deputy Premier was going to be present today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Yes. Maybe if your first question-I don't see him coming through. Yes, there he is. We'll just give him a quick moment. We'll stop the clock, please, if we could. Actually, start it back at the beginning; we'll start all over again. I think we're ready.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, tonight millions of Canadian television viewers are going to be watching a playoff game between the Ottawa Senators and the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Whereas the Ontario viewing public is going to be divided on the outcome, they are going to be absolutely united in their disgust at the display of attack ads that are going to be run during this game by both the provincial and federal governments. We're talking about $5 million, which are desperately needed in health care here in Ontario.

Minister, when is this game of political one-upmanship going to end? When are you going to do the right thing and stop the finger pointing, stop the blame game and begin to spend the money where we need it, in our health care?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm not going to comment on the federal ads; they can answer for themselves. They can answer for themselves on several matters as to why they've reduced cash transfers to Ontario's health care system by $1.7 billion net, even if you include the one-time money they put in, and why the province, recognizing the importance of health in Ontario, has not only made up that $1.7 billion but added another $3 billion on top of that for a total cash infusion on behalf-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Deputy Premier, take you seat. Order. Member for Windsor-St Clair, come to order. We can't have question period if you're going to shout at the ministers when they're giving their answers. Was the Deputy Premier finished?

Hon Mr Eves: Yes.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I have a message for you on behalf of the people of Ontario when it comes to this issue. Do you know what it is, Minister? Grow up. Stop the fighting. Stop the finger pointing. You're taking $5 million in taxpayer dollars and flushing it down-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, take your seat. Stop the clock. We'll just wait until everyone settles down. Start the clock, please.

Mr McGuinty: You are flushing $5 million in taxpayer dollars down the advertising toilet. It is having no real benefit to Ontarians, who are very concerned about health care and its state in our province.

Do you know what $5 million would get us, Minister? If we used it where we need it, in health care, it would get us 400 cardiac surgery operations, 5,000 cataract removals for our seniors, treatment for 25,000 emergency patients and the operation of five MRIs for an entire year. That's what $5 million would get us, Minister.

On behalf of Ontario taxpayers, on behalf of Ontario citizens who are so concerned about the future of health care, how can you and the federal government justify spending $5 million on wasteful, taxpayer-funded, partisan political advertising?

Hon Mr Eves: Speaking of growing up, where were you last week when the vote was taken to restore the health care money the federal government had taken away from the people of Ontario?

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. If the government benches are yelling across, we'll stop the clock. He's going to get the time anyway, so you may as well be quiet and let him ask the question, because we'll be here and they're going to get the full time to ask questions. Start the clock, please.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I don't know of anybody in our province who agrees with using taxpayer dollars for partisan political advertising. I don't know anybody who supports that. I don't know anybody who feels that your advertising campaign is a better use of taxpayer dollars than would be the case if they were invested in our health care needs. I don't know anybody who favours your approach in this matter.

In November 1999, I introduced a private member's bill,

An Act to end partisan government advertising. Minister, why don't we put this kind of stuff behind us? Why don't you make a commitment to Ontario's taxpayers that never again will you engage in this kind of wasteful expenditure of their hard-earned dollars? Will you today stand up and agree that you will support my private member's bill so that you will start to use taxpayer dollars in health care, where they are needed, and never again use them in partisan political advertising?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition is confusing advertising dollars with health care dollars. If you're so concerned about the $3 million, why don't you rhyme off a list of things the people of Ontario could benefit from, from the $1.7 billion, not million, that Allan Rock and Jean Chrétien have taken away from the people of Ontario, and why wouldn't you co-sign a letter to the federal government, dated February 17 of this year, which at least the leader of the third party had the intestinal fortitude and integrity to do?

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I have some issues to raise with you in connection with your whole farm relief program. I have in my hand the case of a farmer from Listowel who received a letter telling him he had been overpaid by $4,800. He appealed this matter. He received an additional payment, in fact, and subsequently learned, by means of another letter in April, that you were now looking for a $35,504 reimbursement. So first he made application and discovered that he qualified. Then he was told he had been overpaid by $4,800.

He appealed that and got another amount of compensation, and then he got another letter saying: "No, we made a mistake. In fact we overpaid you by $35,504." This is not an isolated case; we have collected over a dozen so far.

Minister, tell us, why is your disaster relief program now a disaster in its own-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the member's time is up. Minister.

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I agree it's very important that farmers have the opportunity to avail themselves of the assistance the government is providing through the whole farm relief program. One of the concerns the program had was that if there was a difference between the figure sent in by the farmers and the calculations our whole farm relief program staff made, there would be a mechanism in place to adjust those figures. Obviously that is the review the Leader of the Opposition refers to.

I presume that review was done in this case and was decided in favour of the applicant. Of course, I don't know to which individual application he's referring, nor would I want to speak to it directly. But I'm sure that if different numbers came out subsequent to that review, that too would be reviewable and they would make sure he was getting the fair amount he requires from the whole farm relief program.

Mr McGuinty: This disaster relief program is a disaster in and of itself. We alone have collected over a dozen cases of incompetence and mismanagement.

Here's another one, a farmer in Rodney: He experienced severe losses in the commodity markets. He made application for disaster relief, and did so with the assistance of your ministry officials. He received $10,177. He spent that money immediately on his losses. Six months later he got a letter from the ministry saying: "We gave you too much money. In fact, we gave you $10,177 too much." This farmer doesn't have this money. He made application to you because of losses he experienced; he used the money, as he should have, to make up for his losses; and now you've come back and said: "We made a mistake. We shouldn't have given you a single penny."

Minister, this is not an isolated case. Will you now admit that your disaster relief program in Ontario is a disaster?

Hon Mr Hardeman: The Leader of the Opposition is pointing out that the program is a disaster. I just want to point out that some 7,000 Ontario farmers have received benefits from the whole farm relief program. If he's saying they should not have got any of that money because the program doesn't work, I think they would likely disagree with him. I think the majority of farmers are receiving payment through that fund.

But I should say that some changes have been made. The federal government has made a number of changes to the program, and maybe the Leader of the Opposition would know that. Ontario was off the mark considerably ahead of the federal government in getting this program in place. When the federal government came along and put their program with it, they made some changes that required a recalculation of some of the applications for 1998, and this did cause some concern with people who had received payment and then, with the federal calculations, were not eligible for those payments. That's why there's a review program in place, to make sure-

The Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Again, the Ontario public, and farmers in particular, are sick and tired of the blame game. You know, Minister, that you are responsible for the administration of this disaster relief program and the $100 million connected with it. We ourselves have found in excess of a dozen cases of mismanagement, bungling and incompetence. Farmers are losing confidence in your ability and the ability of this government to administer a relatively straightforward program. Farmers have been caught up in global economics which have resulted in tremendous losses for them here in Ontario.

There's a disaster relief program in place that is supposed to help them. What you are doing is jerking them around. You give them a cheque, and then you take it back. You reassess them, you give them another cheque and you take it back. They have to have something in place that they can rely on. On behalf of Ontario farmers, I'm asking you what you are going to do to fix this?

Hon Mr Hardeman: To reiterate, the majority of our farmers, almost 7,000 of them, have received assistance because of the unfair subsidization in our competing economies and are able to sustain their situation. Yes, there are some farmers who in their applications did not provide the type of information required, or the numbers did not balance the way they should. They have been reviewed.

They have been given the opportunity to appeal that to a committee that's appointed, three by the provincial government and three by the federal government, to make sure every farmer in Ontario gets his fair share of the $100 million we were able to send out to farmers to help them through these difficult times.

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

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Today I joined Jessica Brennan, the NDP candidate in Wentworth-Burlington. to expose how your government has cut health care funding in the Hamilton Wentworth region. Your government cut the operating funding of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp by $40 million, and guess what? Now the hospitals in the region have a $40 million deficit. Deputy Premier, Jessica Brennan gave me an invoice for $40 million. She asked me to present it to you, and I'm going to send it over to you right now.

But I want to ask you this question: When are you going to put the $40 million in operating funding that you have taken from Hamilton-Wentworth hospitals back into the system? When are you going to show you truly care about quality health care in the Hamilton-Wentworth region?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Deputy Premier.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm sure the Minister of Health would be willing to answer this question.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government has provided $370 million to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp this year. In the past year, the hospital has received millions of dollars in additional funding from the province including $13 million to address structuring issues, $3.5 million for nursing, $3.1 million for its trauma program, $3.5 million for the cardiovascular program and $3.7 million for emergency services-increased funding by over $26 million from 1996-97, when it was at $343 million, to where we are today. They have received well over $26 million in funding to address these front-line patient services.

Mr Hampton: And at the end of the day you are still $40 million short and you're closing your eyes and ears to what communities are trying to tell you.

Minister, lives are being put at risk while you and the Liberals in Ottawa spend millions of dollars on flashy television ads. Let me give you just one example. Trisha Saunders is a mother who lives in Dryden, Ontario. Since March 17 she has been trying to get medical attention for her four-year-old son, who has dysentery-like symptoms. She has been turned away from doctors' clinics because it takes two months in Dryden to get an appointment with a doctor, if you have a family doctor, and they won't take walk-ins. She went to the emergency room at the hospital and was told there was no doctor there. On March 29 she went back to the emergency room and was told again, "Sorry, no doctor here."

This little boy now weighs less than an average two-year-old and still can't get to see a physician. Minister, can you tell me why you and the Liberals are spending millions of dollars on flashy television ads when children like this can't even get to see a doctor?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our government has increased health care spending in this province by $3 billion since 1995. We have indicated that we will be increasing our health budget by an additional 20% over the next four years. We have also increased hospital funding this past year by $600 million. We also are undertaking a review of physicians' services in the province of Ontario. We want to ensure that we have a long-range plan that will address the distribution needs and also ensure that we have the appropriate specialists located in the province where they're needed.

So we have certainly taken action-action that could have been taken by the NDP government when they were in power but they did not take.

Mr Hampton: First you cut $800 million from hospitals, then you put $600 million back in and you want people to give you credit. Then you make a whole long list of empty announcements that haven't amounted to a hill of beans. Here's the reality: While this little boy and his mother and his family can't get to see a physician, you and the Liberals in Ottawa are blowing millions of dollars on nothing more than a disgusting propaganda campaign. That's the long and the short of it.

Minister, $6 million would make a big difference out there; $6 million would ensure that we could have six community health centres in northwestern Ontario. It would ensure that the doctor and the nurse practitioner and the nurses would be in for this little boy and his family.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: I see the Liberals have something to say about this too. Minister, the point of the matter is this: You and the Liberals are engaged in a game of cutting health care, of putting more and more patients at risk. When are you going to pick up your share of the responsibility and do something for families like this?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Perhaps the leader of the third party has forgotten that it was his government that cut enrolment when it came to physicians in 1993 by 10%. It was also his government that introduced the social contract and Rae days. It was also his government that refused to build any long-term-care beds or to move forward with community services.

Our government has undertaken the reform that is necessary to ensure that people in this province not only have the services that are required but have those services closer to home. We are presently constructing five cancer facilities and three new cardiac centres; we are expanding dialysis services-we have an additional 30; we will have 37 MRIs; and we will continue to take those steps in the prevention area. This morning I indicated that our government was increasing the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children funding to $67 million-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. New question.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education. I would just say to the Minister of Health that the social contract at least kept nurses working instead of laying them off by the thousands, which you have done.

To the Minister of Education: Despite all the obstacles you've created, the secondary school teachers and the board in Thames Valley have reached an agreement that covers staffing positions for the 2000-01 school year. Under the agreement, teachers would provide remedial help for kids during their lunch hour, and this would meet all the requirements of your regulations and guidelines. But no sooner have they reached this agreement than your ministry intervenes and threatens to bring in yet more regulations to, in effect, overrule this agreement.

You say you want teachers to spend more time with kids, but when they find a way to do this within the guideline and spend time with kids who need help, you say, "No, we're not going to allow it."

Clearly the issue isn't spending more time with kids; the issue is getting rid of teachers. The issue is forcing teachers to teach more children. Minister, when are you going to stop trying to get rid of teachers and start paying attention to children's education?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Thousands of nurses left this province under the previous government, just to keep the record straight.

Regarding the instructional time in education, we've been very clear since two years ago that 1,250 minutes is the standard we would like teachers to be teaching in the classroom. We were asked for greater clarity on how we should be defining that. We indeed provided them with a regulation that clearly laid out what is allowed and what is not allowed. We've been asked for greater clarity. If the board wishes to change how we refer to it, 1,250 minutes or 6.5170, that wonderful factor they all get into, we're looking at whether we can clarify it through legislation.

But we've been very clear what the standard is, what the rules are, and we've also been clear that we expect our school board partners and the teachers' federations to abide by those standards.

Mr Hampton: The fact is this, Minister: This board and these teachers found a way for these teachers to work within your guidelines and spend more time with the children who actually need help, and you overruled it. Why? Because at the end of the day, you want to get rid of teachers. You want to be able to say that if the

schedule is thus and so; we'll get rid of this many teachers. What that means is more teachers seeing more students, not more time for each student, not more time for the students who need extra help. It simply means forcing more teachers to deal with more students, and that doesn't help education.

Minister, you're intervening with boards of education; your government is intervening with hospital boards. All of this is about cutting money: cutting money from hospitals, cutting money from school boards. Tell us, when are you going to stand up and speak out and speak up for the children, rather than trying to find ways to get more money out of the system?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, in 1995-96, when this government came in, there was over $12 billion for education. There is now $13.4 billion available for education. So we're putting more money in, not less.

Second, the unions were concerned that seven out of eight, to use their terminology, was not an acceptable working load. They wanted six out of eight. We've compromised with 6.5 out of eight. We've put more money into the system to do that. We've also put more money out there for remediation efforts for students, in terms of the learning opportunities grant, so there will be more money for those students, for example, struggling with the new curriculum. We also put more money out there for the teacher adviser program, so that teachers could indeed do remediation.

We're interested in supporting good teachers doing their job. We're interested in supporting students who need the help. We're not interested in cute solutions to get around standards that the province sets.

HOME CARE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to the provision of homemaking services in my community. Late last year, a gentleman named Mr John Paun had his homemaking services discontinued as a result of your rules and regulations. Prior to the service being cut, I wrote to you asking for a review of the decision, to which you did not respond. The services were subsequently cut, and then, lo and behold, Mr Paun, who is 81 years old and blind, set fire to his apartment while trying to prepare a meal.

I should tell you that after almost killing himself all he could eat were sandwiches. As a result of the intervention of various people, including the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Mr Paun's services have been temporarily restored. According to the CNIB, he needs approximately 400 hours of retraining. To date, he has had four hours.

Will you now reconsider your decisions with respect to homemaking services in this province, to ensure that people like Mr Paun aren't left alone and aren't endangered again because of your short-sightedness?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member of course understands very clearly that it was our government that introduced the 43 CCACs in Ontario, and it is up to each CCAC to ensure that services are provided throughout the province. We have in this province one of the most generous home care programs in all of Canada. We presently are funding home care services $115 per capita, and that is the next highest after-next comes Manitoba. We have new maximum service levels.

I can assure you that the program as it exists in the province today is among the most generous-indeed, it is the most generous in this province. We have continued to ensure that the needs of those who need services are looked at on an individual needs basis by-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Health, your time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Duncan: It's interesting you say that, Minister, because I now have budgets for the coming year of both the Ottawa-Carleton and the Windsor-Essex CCACs. Both sets of budgets are predicting double-digit demands for increase in service. They are also both predicting a shortage of nurses and homemakers due to the fact that the differential exists between hospitals and community care services. These cuts fall right into your lap. The Windsor-Essex board is projecting another cut in service to homemaking for the coming year. They are further predicting a cut in nursing services, even though there is a growing increase in demand.

What do you say to Mr Paun and what do you say to other constituents? I have eight of them and I've written to you on all of them; for instance, the 81-year-old blind diabetic who had her services cut because the CCAC is not funded appropriately by you or your ministry.

Will you now admit that your funding shortfalls, which are documented-and I should say, Minister, your ministry has done everything in its power to keep these budget documents out of our hands. You've been hiding it, covering it up, trying to pass the buck on a problem that you caused. What do you say-

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Since 1995, our government has recognized the need for home care services for the people in this province, and we have increased funding by 49%. We are today spending $1.5 billion annually. I find it amazing and I find it disappointing that as they ask for additional dollars, they don't have the same fortitude and courage to ask their federal cousins to restore the CHST funding cuts.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: These documents make no provision for cheap, partisan political-

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. New question.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the minister responsible for children's issues. My constituents are eager to see the recommendations of the Early Years Study implemented across the province. I understand that you just completed a tour of the Early Years demonstration project. How much progress has been made so far at these sites?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): I'd like to thank my colleague Julia Munro, the member for York North, for this question.

I am very pleased to report that great progress has been made at the five demonstration sites across the province and indeed in several other communities that I've also visited. During my tour of southeastern Ontario, for example, I visited several outstanding early child development and parenting programs, including two in Prince Edward county.

Abigail's Centre for Early Child Development, located in Belleville, has happened because of the vision and leadership of one individual, Dr Harold Goldsman. This program is managed by three full-time volunteers. They have also helped to raise more than $100,000 in in-kind support for building renovations. My colleague Leona Dombrowsky, the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up.

Mrs Munro: I understand that during your tour of southeastern Ontario, you had the opportunity to visit the Kanata Research Park. Could you tell us more about the innovative partnership that is taking place at this park.

Hon Mrs Marland: During my tour of the Ottawa-Carleton area, I visited two particularly innovative community initiatives, including one in the Kanata Research Park. The Kanata Research Park Family Centre is a partnership between technological research companies, the regional government and early child development services providers. I did the official opening of the centre and very much enjoyed meeting Terri Matthews, a CEO of Newbridge Networks, whose generosity and leadership have set an example for businesses across Canada.

Second, I would like to commend the community of Vanier for coming together to create the program that is now in place at Le Petit Prince School. Le Petit Prince is a progressive early child development and child care centre serving the surrounding francophone population. I would recommend to my colleague Claudette Boyer, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, that if you haven't-

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's obvious that the minister would like to make a statement in the House. I would ask for all-party agreement to allow her to do so and provide opportunities for the opposition to respond.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is to the Minister of Health. Nine months ago you assured Cancer Care Ontario that you were ready to support a provincial screening program to detect colorectal cancer in its early stages. Cancer Care Ontario is recommending the program, they understood that the program was to go ahead, and now you are stalling and you say you want to do a pilot project in place of that.

Minister, colorectal cancer claims more lives than any other cancer except lung cancer. It is expected to kill 2,300 people in Ontario this year alone, but if it is detected early, there's a 90% cure rate. There is no arguing the balance here. There is no doubt about what is in the public interest. We are talking about 2,300 deaths this coming year versus the potential for a 90% cure rate. Why would you wait one more day before giving people with cancer their best chance to beat this?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We actually have responded, and I don't know whether the member is aware of the fact, but at the present time the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has yet to endorse colorectal cancer screening. They are evaluating the issue of whether population-based colorectal screening is what they should be recommending. To date, no country has introduced this program. However, England and Scotland have announced pilot sites.

We have also agreed that we would support a pilot that would take place in Ontario, and we have suggested that such a pilot study should be undertaken. It would be the first one in Canada, and we would look forward to working with-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, let's strip away the mask. You are more concerned in your government about controlling costs than you are about saving lives. Cancer Care Ontario is your advisory body on all matters relating to cancer. Cancer Care Ontario has been very careful to ensure that what they recommend to you is based on sound scientific evidence of benefit. In fact, some would argue that Cancer Care Ontario has been overly cautious in some areas. The evidence is absolutely clear that early detection can save the lives of 90% of those who will develop colorectal cancer this year.

Minister, you funded an expert panel to report to you on colorectal cancer screening. You received the final report of your own expert panel last April. Here's what the recommendation of your expert panel said: "Based on the evidence available, the expert panel recommends the establishment of a provincial program rather than one or more pilot projects."

That's what your experts are telling you. What are you waiting for? When will you be ready to invest in the saving of 2,300 lives this year alone?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, I don't think it was made abundantly clear to the member opposite that the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has yet to endorse colorectal cancer screening. No country in the world has introduced a population-based screening. It's important that we take into consideration the high cost of this program, the commitment of health resources and also the concerns regarding a population-based approach that have been expressed nationally and internationally.

It compels us to take a cautious and measured approach, and we have recommended that we do exactly that, and we have recommended that they undertake a pilot similar to what is being undertaken in England and Scotland.

TEACHER TESTING

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is to the Minister of Education. On Thursday of last week the Ontario College of Teachers released their consultation report on teacher testing. Although they recommend written tests for teachers entering the system and those who return to practising, they don't seem to recommend a written test for teachers who are currently in the profession. In light of this report, why are you pushing ahead with teacher testing?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I thank the honourable member for Thornhill for the question. We are committed to doing what we said we were going to do to bring in a comprehensive teacher testing pro gram, because all of our Ontario students deserve quality education. While we recognize that we have many excellent teachers in this province, the parents have told us that we need to make sure we're doing everything we can to help them to be up to date with their skills and training, as well as their knowledge.

We'll be implementing an effective program, a made-in-Ontario program. I know the College of Teachers and the unions are quite obsessed about written tests, and our program certainly will have written components to assess knowledge, but it won't be limited to this. Of course it won't be limited to this, because we know that true measures of competency must include more than simply measures of knowledge. We've been very clear about that. They need to know how to apply the knowledge in a classroom, classroom management, curriculum management, dealing with parents. There are many other skills that teachers need, and we will be assessing all of that.

Mrs Molinari: I thank the minister for her commitment to education in the province of Ontario. I would like to ask the minister, now that we have this report from the College of Teachers, how is the government going to ensure that we bring forward an effective teacher testing program that tests not only teachers' knowledge but also their skills and ability to teach?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We've also been very clear that not only do there need to be written components to assess knowledge, but there also need to be other evaluation and assessment procedures. There needs to be mandatory professional self-development. The college made some excellent recommendations about what needs to be done at the beginning, as teachers are coming into the profession. They also talked about developing standards for evaluation procedures. So there are a number of steps we're going to take to have a very broad-based, multi-faceted testing program.

We've been very consistent, unlike the leader of the Liberal Party, because he has flip-flopped on this issue since he first started. The Liberal red book called for mandatory regular recertification tests for teachers. Then in the 20/20 Plan he advocated exams for new teachers. Lately he's been saying that testing teachers does little to improve the quality of education. We've been clear. I wonder where he stands next week.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. This weekend Highway 407 private owners said that vehicle permit suspension for those who supposedly owe tolls will soon be coming back. That would end the amnesty announced by your government last February. To remind you, Minister, the reason you stopped suspending vehicle permits was because it was proven that due to the bad job the private owners of Highway 407 were doing administering toll collection, innocent motorists were getting their vehicle permits suspended.

My question to you is this: Seeing there's no reason to believe that the private owners of Highway 407 will do any better job in administering the collection of tolls and that this is not a power that should be given to a private corporation, will you support the NDP's Highway 407 amendment act that would put an end to this practice?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): The legislation allowing for plate denial was passed by the NDP government. It was called the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993. This government will not reinstate plate denial until the new fair resolution dispute mechanism is fully implemented.

Mr Bisson: It always amazes me how ministers of the crown-like the Minister of Health got up a little while ago and said: "You know, that was the NDP's fault. They were government some time in the past so let's blame them." The reality is, you are the minister who privatized Highway 407, and by way of Bill 26 you gave the ability to that private corporation to remove the permits from vehicles. It was you and your government that did it. You are the one who has to take responsibility.

It's a bad practice to be giving a private corporation that kind of power. We know that the Highway 407 owners are not any better at administering toll collection than they were three months ago, so I'll ask you a very simple question: Will you support our bill and not allow this practice to go forward?

Hon Mr Turnbull: The extensions to Highway 407, the full west extension and the east partial, are being built at no cost to the taxpayer. This is a good deal for the taxpayers of Ontario. As I said, there is a new, fair mechanism for judging this. An independent auditor will ensure that the process is in place. We have, in fact, an independent arbitrator in place now, which will ensure that the public is well served.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. As of today, over 70 municipalities across the province have passed resolutions expressing their concern about for-profit, privately run correctional facilities in Ontario. Some have done so for moral reasons, for financial reasons, community safety reasons, and most of all for a variety of reasons. Whatever the reason, these communities are speaking directly to you. Your response has been, "I will take steps to make your determination of this issue a matter of record and ensure that no planning of further correctional institution investment, either new or expanded facilities, will occur in your municipality."

Is it your government's belief that if communities across the province are concerned or ask a question, you threaten them if they don't get in line, or will you withdraw these questions and letters and apologize to the municipalities and their citizens for your threats?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I will say to the member opposite that what I will do is make sure that the correctional system in this province is delivering results at a fair cost to the taxpayers. That is something, sir, that your government when it was in power refused to pay attention to.

In this province we are not getting tremendous success in reducing the rates of reoffending by the people who go through our facilities. On top of that, because of the mismanagement of the member's government over there, the cost of this system is the second highest in North America. We're spending the second-highest amount and we are getting poor results.

Anybody who looks at this particular issue-

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, come to order, please. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Sampson: Anybody who looks at the facts will say that is totally unacceptable in this province. I mean to change the system so that we are getting results and we are getting responsible-

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Levac: That must include your made-up number of 80% recidivism.

Minister, it's interesting that you don't want to answer the question about removing the threatening letter. It's interesting that the municipal affairs minister tabled a bill that gives citizens a voice in their local issues. I guess this is a case of, "Do as I say but not as I do," because you take great pains to remove any local voice in provincial matters. On one hand your government is saying, "We want to hear from you," but on the other hand, when you hear from them, you will not listen to them or you will even threaten them.

Minister, again considering this double standard you have established in this House today, will you withdraw the statements made in your correspondence or assure the citizens of this province that you will not implement the failed experiment of for-profit private correctional facilities?

Hon Mr Sampson: I will assure the people of this province now, as I have for some time, that we will have in this province a made-in-Ontario solution that delivers results from a correctional system that costs the taxpayer a fair amount.

The member is speaking about resolutions of council and leading this House to believe that council upon council is coming in support of that resolution. Why won't he tell us about Chatham, and that the Chatham council refused to pass the very resolution he says is spreading entirely across this province? It's because he knows the people in this province are asking this minister and this government to create a correctional system that will deliver results at a fair cost to taxpayers and that is accountable, something you failed to do when your government was in power.

The Speaker: Order. The member's time is up.

FORENSIC TESTING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Solicitor General and has to do with public safety, something very important to the people of Ontario. Last week, the federal Auditor General released a report highlighting a backlog of cases in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police laboratory system. Focusing on the area of DNA testing, he went on to suggest that this backlog represents an increased risk to public safety.

Public safety is one of this government's top priorities. We have made a commitment to the people of Ontario to improve the safety of our communities, like our Partners Against Crime initiative, which invests $150 million into putting 1,000 net new front-line police officers on our streets. Minister, in light of the federal Auditor General's report, could you tell the House about the investments our government has made to improve public safety in the Centre of Forensic Sciences?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I have always said it's important for us, in the fight against crime, to use science and technology to the best of our ability, and that includes forensics, which is a very important part of this. You'll be happy to know that in Ontario we have doubled the size of the budget for forensics in the DNA area. We've doubled the number of scientists and technicians working in this area, with another 26 added to it. In addition to the area of DNA, which is exciting and which I'll come back to in a second, we've also invested $3.25 million into our hair and fibre unit, which is another use of science in the battle against crime.

With respect to DNA testing, unlike the federal auditor's report and the criticism of the labs federally, we've been accredited again. Not only that, but the contrast is several months under the federal system or 48 hours in Ontario, which is as fast as the chemical process can be done. That's the difference.

Mr Stewart: It's nice to know that, unlike the federal Liberals, our government is supporting a wide range of initiatives to fight crime, from the front-line police officers on our streets to new and innovative techniques at the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Minister, you mentioned both financial commitments to the Centre of Forensic Sciences and our determination to act upon recommendations of the report by Justice Archie Campbell. Could you tell the House and the constituents of Peterborough what action our government has taken to implement the recommendations in the Campbell report?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Out of the whole Bernardo investigation, Mr Justice Archie Campbell had a certain number of recommendations that we felt it was very important for us to do something about to ensure better public safety in Ontario.

The first one, which is a very good step, was the establishment of the serial and predator crime unit. I believe that is an important area we need to do something about. Secondly, we established the provincial violent crime linkage analysis system, and that's ViCLAS. What that is is using science and technology to use all the evidence to find a common suspect.

When you combine that with our major case management pilot project done by the Toronto police and the Peel police, that allows us to bring down the time for investigations into such areas as serial rapists and serial murderers from several months to a period of maybe a couple of days. Of course, at that point in time the DNA testing that we do in Ontario kicks in and we have a suspect.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Time is up.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of Health. You and I know that the decisions of your health care restructuring commission and your own decisions have caused great consternation and chaos in the Kingston area in southeastern Ontario. Your health care restructuring commission ordered the Hotel Dieu Hospital closed. It was only after a petition was taken up with some 70,000 names, plus a visit by the Premier on a fundraising trip, that the sisters have now been granted the right to manage and govern their hospital for the immediate future.

Minister, patients have lost much-needed services, waiting lists have lengthened and patients are being discharged early without adequate community care and supports. When are you going to restore the $25 million in patient care services that you have taken out of hospital and long-term funding in southeastern Ontario? You promised that every penny would be reinvested. When are you going to live up to your promise and reinvest the $25 million that you've taken out of our community back into the community?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Unfortunately, the information presented does not reveal what has actually happened. The funding for health care services in Kingston, the area where the member lives, has actually increased by at least $96 million since 1995. That includes money for priority programs, hospital restructuring, pediatric oncology, emergency funding, nurses, mental health, and the list goes on and on. You have received an additional, at least, $96 million since 1995.

Mr Gerretsen: We have compiled a list out of your own budget documents for the last five years that clearly indicates that $25 million a year has been taken out of the health care budget in the Kingston area since 1995, while you've been in power.

Minister, later on today the House will be debating a motion that we put forward asking you to build-not announce but build-more long-term beds. So far you haven't built one. We're asking you to adequately fund community care to support those who are discharged from hospitals quicker and sicker, but also for funds to meet the needs of the frail and elderly.

When are you going to put the money you've taken out of the hospital system back into much-needed community care? And will you and the members of your caucus support our resolution later on today?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's rather unfortunate that the member opposite has such a short memory. It was his party that totally neglected the needs of the elderly when they were in office. They did nothing to expand community services, they did nothing to expand home care, they did nothing to put in place the CCACs and they built no long-term-care beds after the final bed had been constructed.

Furthermore, these are some of the increases we made to CCACs: The Ottawa CCAC got $57 million in 1994-95; in 1999-2000 they got $71.7 million. Windsor-Essex got $30 million in 1994-95; in 1999-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take your seats. Stop the clock. Put 10 seconds back on the clock, please, if you could. I just wanted to see if you could do that.

ENERGY COMPETITION

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. I have read in the papers and heard you make statements about the potential investments in energy coming into Ontario as a result of deregulation. Could you please tell us some details about these investments, like the one for example named Sithe, in my area of Mississauga. I'd like you to comment on those investments.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Thank you to my colleague for Mississauga East for the question. Since the Energy Competition Act was passed in late 1998, we've seen some $3.2 billion worth of new investment in new generation proposed for the province.

That is all clean generation, and I'm pleased to confirm for the honourable member for Mississauga East that I met with Sithe Inc, one of the world's largest energy companies, last week and they have reconfirmed for this government that they are moving ahead with their two planned 800-megawatt plants, one for Mississauga and one for Brampton. These will be the largest plants of their kind ever in Canada. It's a US$1-billion investment and will produce enough electricity-clean electricity, powered by natural gas-for 1.5 million homes.

It's exactly the type of investment we want to see in this province, and I congratulate the company for coming into Ontario, putting their dollars on the table and providing us with clean electricity for our homes and businesses.

Mr DeFaria: These proposals sound very promising for the people of Ontario, and I look forward to seeing the benefits of this investment for my constituents in Mississauga East. Minister, can you tell us how these new investments will fare for the environment?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, in addition to Sithe's two 800-megawatt, high-efficiency natural gas plants, we have 16 proposals in total. Nine of those are high-efficiency, clean natural gas, and the rest fall under the category of generating electricity from wind, biomass and hydroelectricity. Under the monopoly system of the old Ontario Hydro, which previous governments didn't do anything about, it was illegal to get clean electrons to customers, because Hydro had a monopoly on the grid.

If you had a solar panel or you were producing electricity from biomass or you had a windmill like the one on top of Blue Mountain in my riding, you could not get that clean energy to your customers, because Ontario Hydro wouldn't allow it.

We've changed that all around. We've introduced the Energy Competition Act, and we now see investment creating 3,500 construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs, over $3.2 billion in new investment coming into this province, as a result of the actions this government has taken. It's clean power and customers-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, you would know that you introduced legislation here last week in which you propose to change the community of Moosonee from an development area board to a full-fledged municipality. The people in Moosonee are asking the people who are on the board now-the chambers of commerce and citizens want to know that when they do go over to a municipality, you are not going to be reducing in any way, shape or form the amount of money the development area board is already getting.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I can tell the honourable member that this change was a result of a lot of consultations in Moosonee. There was a feeling in the community that because of their special status in terms of their structure as a development area board, they were not getting the full rights and probably the full responsibilities associated with being a municipality.

What we want to do through this legislation, should it be passed by the Legislature, is have stronger, more accountable local governance, eliminate some of the duplication inherent in the old system and continue some of the special financial arrangements, which I think is part of your concern, to ensure that there is in place the financial arrangements that are particular to Moosonee, because there are some special circumstances there that have to be continued as well.

Mr Bisson: There are all kinds of weasel words in your answer. We want a simple answer to a simple question. The people in Moosonee want to know, if they buy this act you put forward, in good faith with the provincial government, are you going to assure the citizens of that community, first of all, that you're not going to be reducing their transfers below what they now are, and that you will provide adequate dollars to do the transition toward the creation of the new municipality. It's a very simple question. Yes or no?

Hon Mr Clement: The answer is yes, if I understand the question properly, and I will expand on that so there's no misunderstanding between me and the honourable member. First of all, there are some unique aspects because of very high social assistance costs. I can't imagine a situation where the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services would treat the citizens of Moosonee any differently than citizens anywhere else in Ontario when it comes to the needs of social assistance.

The second issue is that there are particular, what we call LSR costs, the costs associated with the exchange of services between the municipality and the province. I can tell the honourable member, and through him the community, that there is no intention of changing the flow-through from the provincial government with respect to LSR costs. So if that was the nature of the question, the answer is yes, and I would be happy to elaborate in any further detail at the appropriate time, because this is a matter of particular concern to the individual-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. When the operating grants for colleges and universities were announced last month, the collective reaction from the various stakeholders was one of universal disbelief and dismay. The increase in funding was a net zero when inflation was factored in. The formulae introduced for so-called performance-based funds were seriously flawed and implemented without any consideration or input from the representatives of the colleges and universities. In fact, any of the new money they got was based on a formula where the margin of error was larger than the difference.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just a quick minute. Government members, the minister can't even hear the question.

Mrs Bountrogianni: In other words, statistically speaking, the colleges, with respect to the new funding, were funded based on chance. One president called this formula "intellectually vacant."

My question to the minister is a simple one: How does she expect our post-secondary institutions to function effectively with this punitive funding? As well, will she commit to a full review of these indicators, in consultation with the community colleges, before another funding disaster is forced on our colleges and universities?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): Just two short responses to the member's question. First, the key performance in dicators were in fact not made by chance. We had two or three years of discussion.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: She said she didn't say that, but I thought that's what I heard, and if I didn't, I apologize.

There is a very small difference in the margin of error. The point I'd like to make is that these three indicators that we use-graduate employment, graduate satisfaction and employer satisfaction-were agreed upon with the colleges before we implemented this and announced by the former minister to be implemented for September 2000. It's as simple as that. That was agreed to.

Second, is there room for improvement? Yes, there is. Are we working with the colleges to do this? The answer is yes.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been sitting here in question period for the last number of days, and I'm wondering why the member for Parkdale-High Park, Mr Kennedy, hasn't asked a question.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that you could inform him it is because all the questions are for the Premier, and the Premier isn't here to answer them.

PETITIONS

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing that it will allow hunting in Ontario's existing wilderness provincial parks, including Killarney Provincial Park; and

"Whereas we believe that wilderness parks must be protected, thereby restricting the use of the parks to hiking, canoeing, fishing and camping; and

"Whereas Ontarians have been betrayed by the Progressive Conservative government in that no mention was made to open wilderness parks to hunting when the government's land use strategy was revealed last year; and

"Whereas this change in policy has been done quietly and without consultation with the local residents who have always lobbied for increased protection of wilderness parks; and

"Whereas we, members of the Sudbury Ornithological Society, along with our families, friends, neighbours, acquaintances and co-workers are opposed to the Mike Harris government's proposal to allow hunting in Ontario's wilderness parks;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue to ban hunting in all our wilderness parks, and to increase protection of these endangered species."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition and ask Shannon Tufts, the page from Hamilton West, to deliver it to you, Speaker.

BETASERON

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): I have a petition to present on behalf of 1,500 constituents in my community to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas betaseron is a drug that can slow down the attacks of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, it costs $17,000 per year and is not approved for funding in Ontario by the provincial government;

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

"To approve betaseron funding for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis."

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians with a developmental disability are in growing danger of inadequate support because compensation to their workers is, based on a recent survey, on average, 20% to 25% less than compensation for others doing the same work in provincial institutions or similar work in other settings; and

"Whereas there are hundreds of senior parents in Ontario who have saved the Ontario government millions of dollars by keeping their children with a developmental disability at home, and who are still caring for their adult children; and

"Whereas there is no plan of support for most of these adults with a developmental disability to go when the parents are no longer able to provide care; and

"Whereas these parents live with constant anxiety and despair;

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

"To significantly increase compensation for workers in the developmental services sector so it is comparable to the compensation of government-funded workers in identical or similar occupations; and

"To provide the resources necessary to give appropriate support to Ontarians with a developmental disability who have no support when their parents are no longer able to care for them."

I've affixed my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I would point out that these continue to come into my office from Canadian Auto Workers members from all across Ontario:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances known as carcinogens; and

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens; and

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances; and

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I continue to support these petitioners.

SCHOOL CLOSURE

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I rise to read a petition, and I see that Jordyn Clark is here to accept it for you.

"Whereas the council of the city of Burlington has approved a recommendation addressed to the Halton District School Board opposing the provincial funding formula that forces the closure of Central High School in the downtown core; and

"Whereas we, as citizens living in the community, believe that the closure of Burlington Central High School would have a devastating and long-lasting effect on our community;

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

"We urge trustees of Halton District School Board to vote no on April 19, 2000, and no to close Central High School and instead to seek an alternative from the community prior to adopting the C.N. Watson strategic capital plan which will trigger the school's closure;

"Therefore, we ask the Legislative Assembly to ask the Minister of Education to direct the Halton District School Board to reconsider its plan and consult the community timely and adequately about the alternatives to the closure of Central High School."

Mr Speaker, I should inform you that I will not be adding my signature to this petition.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas charities such as the Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

"Whereas Bill 8 effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

"Whereas charitable organizations are dependent on these fundraisers to raise much-needed money and awareness;

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

"We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots."

In support of my private member's bill to this, I add my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and light trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driving licence fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario."

I'll affix my signature.

SOINS À DOMICILE

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : J'ai une pétition ici, qui contient au-delà de 150 noms, que j'ai reçue de St-Isidore.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Attendu que des soins à domicile contribuent d'une manière significative à garder les personnes âgées dans leur maison ;

« Attendu que la ministre de la Santé a fait des coupures drastiques dans les services offerts aux personnes âgées à domicile ;

« Attendu que le gouvernement provincial offre des soins à domicile aux résidents des maisons de retraite, aux foyers privés, aux résidences pour personnes âgées etc ;

« Attendu que les séjours à l'hôpital sont écourtés et que ces personnes, en retournant chez elles, ont un besoin urgent de soins personnels ;

« Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Nous demandons à la ministre de la Santé de remettre les fonds nécessaires pour subvenir aux besoins des personnes âgées et à toutes autres personnes malades, afin de les garder à la maison aussi longtemps que possible. »

J'y ajoute ma signature.

WETLAND

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm presenting to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, on behalf of a couple of very hard-working constituents, a petition that I in most parts agree with.

"Whereas on July 28, 1999, a decision was made by the Ontario Municipal Board which will allow Courtice Heights development OMB file S960058 in Clarington to build upon part of Black-Farewell, a provincially significant wetland, the largest wetland complex in the GTA; and

"Whereas a large portion of this land included in the development plan of subdivision for Courtice Heights is not the property of the developer but is in fact owned by the residents of Hancock Road and Nash Road in Courtice; and

"Whereas information from MNR regarding this wetland was not made available to the OMB by the municipal planning department at the hearing in Clarington, and the existence of this information was denied by the municipal solicitor and the developer at the hearing; and

"Whereas the absence of the MNR information caused the OMB to believe the property in question was woodlot, not provincially significant wetland; and

"Whereas, as a consequence, the OMB allowed this development to be built upon the setbacks and buffers recommended by MNR for wetlands; and

"Whereas the Legislature of Ontario should reverse the decision of the OMB referred to above and permit the petitioners to present the relevant information at a properly constituted review proceeding that was denied to us by the OMB in January 2000 without consideration of consequences;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario to protect provincial interests since MNR, for the Honourable John Snobelen, Minister, is committed to protect this wetland."

I am pleased to present, read and sign this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North: As you know, there have been thousands of people signing petitions related to the inadequacy of the northern health travel grant and they continue to pour in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

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

GAMING CONTROL

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas municipal restructuring and provincial downloading have increased the financial burden on Centre Wellington township resulting in the motivation to seek gambling income to subsidize municipal services; and

"Whereas provincial endorsement of slot machine gambling has placed pressure on existing raceways to embrace slot machines to keep their harness racing operations feasible; and

"Whereas the proponents' desire to meet the Ontario Lottery Corp's March 31 deadline for slot machine applications has prevented the citizens of Centre Wellington township from having full and open input into the planning decision accepting a raceway with slot machines;

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

"Impose interim order to set new zoning aside until the community can participate in a full study of the implications on this community with proper public consultation."

This petition is signed by 33 of my constituents.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Canada's health care system is one of our greatest achievements as a country;

"Whereas health care in Ontario has deteriorated, with medical services being reduced and hospital budgets cut to the bone, resulting in lengthy delays in treatment, with sometimes fatal results;

"Whereas major changes in health care legislation by the Harris government have been made with no prior public consultation;

"Whereas residents of Prince Edward-Hastings are demanding that their voices be heard and their concerns addressed to ensure that future health care legislation meets their needs;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Harris government to protect our valued health care system and to hold public hearings on Bills 23 and 173."

I am pleased to add my signature to this.

ABORTION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition to present on behalf of my colleague the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 46,000 abortions in 1995 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

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

OPPOSITION DAY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I move:

That this House acknowledges the crisis in the community care system across Ontario that has been created by the current government's mismanagement and rationing; and

That this House demands that the government take immediate action to ease the crisis by:

(1) Building long-term beds rather than simply re-announcing plans to build them in order to address the waiting list of 18,000;

(2) Adequately funding community care so that there is not only support for those discharged from hospitals "quicker and sicker" because of government cuts to hospital beds but also funds to meet the needs of the frail and elderly; and

(3) Legislating provincial standards for community care.

Judy Jordan Austin spent $6,000 recently buying extra home care services. She'd been sent home from hospital after a quadruple bypass and she was receiving only three to four hours of government-supported home care per day. In a province in which $14.5 billion is already being spent by individuals privately out of their own pockets to provide what they believe to be medically necessary care, where 41% of the total spending on health care is being paid for privately, home care is one of the most rapidly growing areas of the private cost for health care.

The question today is why? Why are people having to pay more and more out of their own pockets to get care which is clearly needed? The answer equally clearly is that it is because government refuses to fund community care adequately. The government will say, as the minister did earlier today, that they have increased funding, that their funding for home care, for community care access centres, is now up to $1.06 billion, which is an increase during their term in government of some $320 million.

I acknowledge that increase, but it does not begin to meet the increased demand on community care access centres for service, and it doesn't come close to the $800 million which was cut from hospital budgets.

The whole idea, the government told us, behind hospital restructuring, the justification for taking $800 million out of hospital budgets, was to invest in the community so that people could be cared for at home or in long-term-care institutions rather than taking up costly acute care beds. The problem is, the hospital cuts and the bed closures happened before the long-term-care beds were ready and without a sufficient investment in community care. As a result of this disastrous lack of planning, we still have about l8,000 people on waiting lists for long-term-care beds in this province.

None of the 20,000 beds the government keeps announcing, and campaigned on, have actually in fact opened. When they do, they are first going to be filled with the 3,000 chronic care patients who are being displaced by the restructuring of our chronic care hospitals, read "closure."

In my home community of Thunder Bay alone, we currently have about 400 people on a waiting list for long-term-care placement, and the average length of time they have to wait for a bed is over a year. It's important to recognize that those 18,000 people have been assessed as needing the level of care that can be provided in an institutional setting, a long-term-care residential setting, but right now they're at home on their own. They need support, and it is support that this government is not providing.

The question again is, why aren't they getting care? First of all, they're not getting care because the government won't provide the funds that are needed to meet the need. Rather than fund to meet the increasing need, they've rationed care . They quietly passed regulations last July, without any consultation whatsoever, that limit personal care to two hours a day and nursing visits to four visits a day, with a maximum of six hours. In some cases, that might be enough, but in other cases it is clearly not enough.

The fact is, even beyond the rationing that has taken place, the community care access centres often aren't able to provide care even up to the maximums that are allowed under those restrictive regulations, because their budgets aren't enough to provide care even at that limited level. The government has recently decided that they will fund the deficits from last year of the community care access centres, deficits which were run up for one reason only, and that was because they were trying to provide care at least within the levels that government allows.

They ran up deficits trying to meet that need, but the funding is only for one year, just as last year's funding was only for one year to cover the deficits last year, because this government refuses to commit to the level of funding that's needed to provide home care even to the levels they've set out in their restrictive regulations. The fact is, and the community care access centres across this province will say this, that if they don't receive more money to meet the increased need for service, they're going to have to cut their services even more.

Seniors are particularly affected. These are seniors who would like to stay in their own homes, who would like to avoid having to be placed in a nursing home for as long as possible, and if they can't get support, they're going to end up in an institutional setting even earlier.

Homemaking support, one part of the services that community care access centres provide, was originally put in place to help those frail, elderly seniors stay in their homes as long as possible, but homemaking support has been literally cut to the bone. We heard a story earlier today about an 85-year-old blind individual living on his own and not provided with care, who set fire to his home and now needs considerably more support, as well as retraining, to be able to function independently.

We know that in Kingston last year, of 2,200 individuals who were receiving homemaking support, 1,400 had their homemaking support reduced-300 of them had it reduced to zero-not because the Kingston community care access centre didn't believe that homemaking support was needed by these people, but because they simply didn't have the dollars to meet the need.

Some 80% to 90% of care to frail, elderly seniors, or in fact to younger people who need support to be able to function independently in the community, is provided by family members. There is no longer enough money to provide any kind of respite care for those family members, who are under tremendous strain and who, without some help, will not be able to keep their family members at home. I ask this government that's so concerned about its efficiencies: Where is the cost-effectiveness in refusing to provide respite care to families and forcing vulnerable seniors into institutions?

There are others-and I've raised this case in the Legislature-like Lisa Ann Brady, who has Preador-Willi syndrome, a younger woman, but a woman who needs 24-hour care if she is to live independently in the community, and she can't get anywhere near that degree of support. Lisa Ann Brady's case is before the Health Services Appeal Board to get some additional support so she can stay in the community and not be placed in an institution.

The government is so nervous that she might win that they have already begun court proceedings so that if Lisa Ann Brady gets more hours from the Health Services Appeal Board, this government will take her to court to make sure she doesn't get the support she needs to live independently.

I argue that if this government is serious about providing support for people to live in the community, they should fund the kind of hours the community care access centres say are needed. Trust them to make the assessment and provide the appropriate care, and then fund it. Provide flexibility to review the hours, not control costs by inflexible rationing, and not ignore the needs of vulnerable people while they give lip service to the idea of providing support to independent living in the community.

There's a second reason why people can't get care: Because the funds that are being provided to the community care access centres, some of those increased funds the minister talks about whenever we ask about this issue, are actually going to meet the acute care needs of people who have been discharged from hospitals sooner and sicker.

The reality is that before this government decided to start shutting down hospital beds in large numbers by taking $800 million out of hospitals, 75% of the care that was provided by community care access centres was going to support frail, elderly seniors or people who needed long-term support in their homes. Now 50% of the care provided by community care access centres is going to support people who have been discharged from hospitals, acute care patients. That's why there's no money for respite care. That's why there's no money for homemaking for the frail elderly.

There was a clear direction given by the Ministry of Health to community care access centres that said, "You must give priority to people being discharged from hospitals." Why? Because they had a problem with emergency rooms being overloaded, people on stretchers in emergency room hallways because they couldn't get a bed in the hospital. So the government said to the hospitals, "You've got to get people out of the hospitals faster, so discharge them." They were going to fund three new discharge planners. Where do they discharge them to? A logical question.

There were no long-term-care beds for these so-called bed-blockers, so they had to be discharged into the community. So the government had to say, "Community care access centres, use your dollars to provide support as a first priority to people who are coming out of hospitals early, so that you will solve our problem with the underfunding of acute care hospitals." No plan, but just the opposite: a response to the crisis they created, which created more chaos and a domino effect that's not cost-effective.

That's why patients are being sent home without the support they need. That's why they're coming back into hospital, and by then they have complications and need even more time in a costly hospital bed. In the meantime, that frail, elderly, otherwise healthy, 90-year-old who is trying to live independently doesn't get enough support to do that, falls and breaks a hip and he ends up in an acute care hospital. A man who had Preador-Willi syndrome, like Lisa Ann Brady, ended up in a very costly acute care hospital bed for the last month of his life last year because there was no support for him in the community.

I ask again: Where's the logic in refusing to meet the need for community care when the inevitable alternative is costly hospital stays or much early institutionalization?

I have a constituent. All he needs to be able to care for his elderly spouse is to get a bath lift, a simple thing. We can't find anybody within any of the ministries who will take responsibility for providing the simplest thing that would allow this man to continue to care for his elderly spouse.

I think I've run out of time. I'm going to look to the whip because I have no sense of how long I've been speaking and I have many colleagues who want to speak. I just want to mention the third reason, and I hope it will get discussed today because it's important.

The third reason people can't get enough care from the community care access centres is because there aren't enough nurses to even meet the home care contract hours that are available.

There are many reasons there's a shortage of nurses: the 10,000 nurses that were fired before the government decided that nurses weren't as dispensable as Hula Hoops and was prepared to hire some back; the fact that more than 50% of nurses in this province are coming back but only on casual and part-time contracts; the morale of nurses is so low that it's very difficult to attract nurses to work in Ontario; in the community care sector it is particularly difficult because the pay is so much lower than in any other sector of nursing; and because agencies like the Victorian Order of Nurses that have provided care for so long in this province can't even get support from the government to meet the pay equity agreements which they are required to fund.

I'll just close with one last concern and that is, over and over again, the concern that people express to us is that there are no consistent standards for the provision of community care across this province. We hope to see some standards in new Long-Term Care Act regulations that will be brought in. We hope there will be consultation on the changes to the Long-Term Care Act but, quite frankly, I don't expect it. For us to see some really significant changes both in consistent standards and in funding, we need this government to acknowledge that there is a crisis and to agree now that they will act to address it.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further debate.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I'm pleased to indicate that I am supportive of this resolution, although there are some things that I would love to see added to it. In fact, the health critic for the Liberal Party just ended her presentation talking about the need for full public consultation on the new Long-Term Care Act. That's something I would have liked to have seen in this resolution.

We saw the very unfortunate situation more than a year ago when some very major amendments were made to the regulations under the Long-Term Care Act that had the effect of rationing care out there, particularly community services and home care, putting a cap on home care services that people could receive. That was done without any consultation.

This government's record on public consultation is a sorry one. This is an issue on which the general health community, in particular those who are working in the area of long-term care and those who are either clients of long-term care services or family members of clients of long-term care services, believe very strongly that there needs to be full public consultation. In fact, the Ontario Health Coalition has called on a repeated basis for the minister to set up consultation.

What we're aware of is that there are indications there will be amendments to the Long-Term Care Act coming, perhaps as early as this spring session or perhaps in the fall, and that the only consultation being done is with hand-picked individuals behind closed doors. This is a record we've seen over and over again from this government and it's not satisfactory, quite frankly. There have not been full, open public consultations on the direction of long-term care services since the New Democratic Party government held consultations before moving forward with the multi-service agency model of delivering those services.

We know that when the Harris government was elected, they chose to abandon that model to bring in the community care access centre model. Fair enough, but without consultation again. They then moved to make changes to the Long-Term Care Act on the facilities side, like doing away with the minimum requirement for two and a half hours of nursing care. They just simply did away with that. The whole levels of care assessment of funding for long-term-care facilities was based on having a minimum number of nursing hours and a nurse there 24 hours a day on call.

Those sorts of provisions to ensure a high level of services were done away with. As a result, we see in the facilities side a move towards greater utilization of lesser qualified staff as opposed to RNs. We see registered practical nurses and nursing aides, health aides being employed in situations where there would have been nurses in the past, as a result of that change in legislation.

Why is that happening? It's being driven in primarily those nursing homes that are for-profit, and it's a bottom-line question. It's a matter of maximizing the dollars to the shareholders. I think that once and for all we should have a debate in this province about how we go about delivering these human services and whether it's appropriate that our tax dollars that go to support them end up in a process that maximizes the amount of them that goes into shareholders' pockets as opposed to into the services to those elderly people who need those services.

On the side of home care, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the services available to the elderly, frail elderly and disabled in this province to help them maintain living situations that would allow them to remain in their homes and in their communities. Largely that's as a result of the government's cuts, in the early years of the Harris government, to hospital funding, which has forced hospitals to move people out quicker and sicker. So you have a higher level of acuity in the community in terms of the needs of what home care workers are addressing out in clients' homes.

In fact, we now have in place these new regulations that I've talked about that were brought in by stealth which effectively say that those sub-acute-care patients receive priority in terms of the allocation of care and all of the long-term-care patients who were supposed to be supported by that budget allocation-the elderly, the frail elderly and persons with disabilities-have had a cap put on the number of hours they can receive. It works out to about 15 hours a week, roughly two hours a day. It can be shaped in different ways, but that's the maximum. It doesn't matter whether your need is greater than that.

It doesn't matter whether, with some extra supports, you would be able to maintain an individual in a home situation as opposed to placing them on a waiting list for a long-term-care bed or moving into a long-term-care facility when those beds become available.

One of the things in the resolution before us today with respect to long-term-care beds calls on the government to go ahead and build those beds instead of the announcing and the reannouncing. There's some merit in that. But I have to say that the 20,000 beds that are talked about are to stretch out over a whole lot of years, and we do have a rapidly increasing population and there will be growing numbers of seniors.

But today, if we take a look at that waiting list, if we take a look at what people really need, many people are on that waiting list because of inadequate community resources to support their remaining in the community and in their homes. If we could look at the budgets of what's happened over the last number of years in terms of facility side versus community side and recognize that if the support had gone in a more dramatic measure to the community side, we would substantially reduce the need for the number of more expensive long-term-care beds and the number of people who are on those waiting lists.

What we see right now is an even greater crime in this province where many seniors who are unable to get the services they need in their homes and are therefore unable to be sustained living in their homes and in their neighbourhoods, who can't get into long-term-care beds because there have been none built over the last number of years, are finding themselves going into rest and retirement homes, an entirely unregulated sector.

We've called on this government-I have asked questions in this House; I've written letters to the minister; I've called publicly to move to standards of care regulations for the rest and retirement home sector. The reality is that more and more people who find themselves being housed-and essentially that's what's going on, because there isn't a lot of care going on-in the rest and retirement home sector are people who are in need of long-term-care services, and those are not regulated in the rest and retirement home sector.

There is currently a parliamentary assistant who is consulting on that. Again, it is not a broad, open consultation. This government hand-picks who they want to talk to. It's not widely publicized. There isn't a sense that the community is involved in shaping the direction of the future of these services.

The minister often stands, and she did again today in the House, and talks about their record on long-term care, about how much more money they're spending on long-term care than when they took office. If I heard her correctly today, again she used the figure of $1.5 billion more. I really wish members on the other side, instead of just applauding wildly when their minister says things-as they will know from last week alone, she was wrong many times in the House last week, which I had to point out day after day.

Again today, when she said $1.5 billion more, if you look at the operating expenditures for long-term-care facilities and community services under the long-term-care funding envelope for the Ministry of Health and you take a look at 1995-96, which was the last year of the Rae government and the beginning of the Harris government, during that period of time the total expenditures were $2.192 billion and change.

If you look at the estimates for this year-quite frankly I'm being generous in using the estimates, because when you look at the actuals of this government every year they usually tend to be less than what they've estimated they're going to spend-it's $2.9 billion and change. The increase is just over $700 million during that period of time, when we keep hearing the minister talk about $1.5 billion.

I also refer you back to the estimates under the days of the Rae government when increase in spending during that period of time of five years in this portfolio went up by $750 million.

The minister's record is one of continued support to try to meet a need at a decreasing rate, as opposed to an increasing rate, when we know the population continues to age, the number of seniors continues to grow and the number of people in need of these services continues to place a greater demand on the system than the system is providing at this point in time.

It has been complicated, as I said, by the fact that the minister herself, in their actions through cuts to hospital funding in the early years, has used up more and more of those home care and community support services by treating subacute hospital patients who are discharged quicker and sicker with a higher level of acuity, and less of those services remain available for long-term-care clients.

I want to wrap up by saying that again and again in this House the minister stands and makes broad claims about the record of this government. Last week was just an amazing example. When I pointed out on Monday that for two years in this province there were virtually less than half of the number of annual inspections of nursing homes done than had been done in all the previous years under various governments, this minister first stood and said there is no requirement to do inspections. Then she said they were going to replace inspections with new service agreements that the Harris government brought in.

First of all, our

interpretation of the legislation, and every other government's

interpretation, is that it does require annual inspections. Second, the new service agreements were brought in by the Rae government, not the Harris government, and not to replace annual inspections but to be in addition to them.

She left the impression with the press gallery that she was moving to self-regulation of the nursing home sector. We responded to that. She immediately got on the phone and called all the reporters later that afternoon and said: "No, I didn't mean that. We do agree with annual inspections, and we're going to make sure that they are being done."

The next day in the House she accused me of bringing up the issue of self-regulation when she herself had led to that speculation. It was quite astounding to watch. Then she turned and pointed and said: "There has never been full compliance in this province; there has never been, since the days of the NDP government. In fact, it was the NDP government in 1993 that changed the legislation to do away with annual inspections."

Then I had to pull out the legislation and show her that what we had done was change the legislation to introduce the new service agreements-which the day before she had taken credit for-and that we didn't change the language at all with respect to the need for inspections or for licensing in the nursing home sector or for compliance in the nursing home sector.

Then she went off that tack and said: "You never reached full compliance. You didn't inspect all the homes either, and nothing has changed." Through all of this time-we're three days later-she has never yet in that period of time admitted that her government made a resource allocation decision to pull compliance officers off the job and thereby left 50% of the homes in this province without that kind of inspection for compliance.

So we went back and we pulled all the records and we showed how in 1991-we went through all the As and half of the Bs; we couldn't get through it all, because we don't have the resources the minister does-100% of them had annual reviews. In 1992, 100% of them had annual reviews. In 1993, 100% of them had annual reviews. In fact, in 1993 it was more than 100%, because some of them had their annual review in January and then another one in December, instead of in January of 1994. In 1994, as a result of that, because some were done a little early, it drops to 91%. In 1995, it's back up to 100%.

Then what happens when the Harris government takes over? It dropped to something like 65% in 1996, down to 62% in 1997, down to 50% in 1998, a clear shift. Would the minister even admit it then? No.

This resolution speaks to some aspects of what's needed in terms of shoring up direction in terms of long-term care. Quite frankly, we need a full public consultation. We need full participation to review what has happened so far, to understand what works and what doesn't work and set a new direction for this province.

I look forward to participating in that. I doubt the minister is going to call that kind of consultation, so my leader, Howard Hampton, and I announced on Friday that we will be holding full public consultations across the province on this important issue.

I hope the government will participate. I hope they will come out. If they want to take it over and do public consultations, we'll co-operate with that too. It is very needed. The resources that are there are not being wisely used, the resources are inadequate to meet the needs and people are suffering as a result.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I'd like to address the resolution that has been put forward by the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. The general thesis of this resolution is that the government is having a funding shortfall with respect to long-term health care in Ontario. Secondly, she is saying there is mismanagement and rationing of funding, that the funding that is available is being rationed or simply mismanaged. Well, I'm sure it's no surprise to her that I, on this side, will not be supporting the resolution, and I'd like to give my reasoning for that.

The funding shortfall is an interesting observation, particularly since last week we spent quite a bit of time on two resolutions talking about just that: funding shortfalls. There was a resolution by the Premier, Mr Harris, asking the federal government to commit to its commitment, under the Canada Health Act, to increase funding from 11 cents on the dollar to 50 cents on the dollar. That resolution was rejected by my friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan and her Liberal colleagues. It was supported by the New Democrats.

We spent quite a bit of time on that, talking about how the situation in Ontario is no different than in all the other provinces. It's not as if we are different here. We're not different. If you listen to the presentations made by the premiers, the finance ministers and the health ministers across this country, they're all saying the same thing. There is a shortfall of funds, but it's not coming from these provinces. Saskatchewan spends almost 40% of their budget on health care. I don't know where we are; we're certainly over 30% and close to 40%, as the former Minister of Health says.

I guess the question philosophically, whatever your political stripe is in this place, is how much money are you going to spend? Are we going to spend 50%, 75%? How high are we going to go? So the criticism that comes, particularly from the Liberal caucus, is that we should not be critical of the federal Liberal government and that the fault is here in Ontario. That's what this resolution says.

Mr Rock comes forward and says, "You should be restructuring your health care, and you should be restructuring your long-term care." It's as if we have had no restructuring in this province since this government got elected. Is anyone going to stand in their place and say that? We are changing, whether it's long-term care, the introduction of the community care access centres-we changed it from t