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

June 8, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L022a - Mon 8 Jun 1998 / Lun 8 Jun 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PETER WONG

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

HATE CRIMES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

COBOURG BICENTENNIAL

TUITION FEES

WINDSOR CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

FATHER BERNARD HAYES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREATER HAMILTON AREA MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RESTRUCTURATION MUNICIPALE DANS LA RÉGION DU GRAND HAMILTON

SCHOOL CLASS SIZES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA TAILLE DES CLASSES SCOLAIRES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETER WONG

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

CANCER TREATMENT

SPECIAL EDUCATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

ELECTORAL REFORM

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

CLASS SIZE

CASINO WINDSOR

JUSTICE SYSTEM

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

RENT REGULATION

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FRAIS DE SCOLARITÉ

ABORTION

ROAD SAFETY

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

ABORTION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PAY EQUITY

ROAD SAFETY

ABORTION

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

ABORTION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

BEAR HUNTING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PETER WONG

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Sadly, I must inform the House of the untimely death of Sudbury's first elected regional chair. Chair Peter Wong died suddenly of an apparent heart attack this past Saturday, serving the people of our region well while attending the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in Saskatchewan.

Peter's very quiet manner was coupled with a diligence and a determination that knew no bounds. He felt deeply about our region, and in his short seven months in office had started the process of change which would ensure our region continued to remain strong well into the future.

Peter had very many strong qualities as a politician, but the strongest was that he put people before politics. All his decisions and directions were based on what was best for the people of the region, regardless of what political price he had to pay personally. For Peter, people came before politics.

As chair, he celebrated when the people of our region celebrated. As chair, he hurt when the people of our region hurt. Today all citizens of the regional municipality of Sudbury and we here in the House want to tell Lynn, Peter's wife, and their children, Nancy and Eric, that we grieve together. The passing of this good man reminds us that politicians like Peter deserve our love, respect and honour. They also deserve our grief, and today we grieve together.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I too want to make some comments about the passing of Regional Chair Peter Wong, because our whole community was shocked over the weekend to learn of his death. He had been attending the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in Regina when he suffered a fatal heart attack.

Peter Wong was the first chair who was actually elected as regional chair in our community, and that came in November 1997. Although that term was very short-lived, his activity in local politics in our community spanned many years. At the political level, he was mayor of Sudbury and a regional councillor for nine years. He was a trustee for the Sudbury Board of Education for three terms. He served as a director of the Ontario Good Roads Association and as regional director of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

He was a vice-chair of the Ontario Highway Transport Board and a vice-chair of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. He was chair of that latter organization when I was Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and it was a pleasure and an honour to work with him during that time.

He was active in our community as well. He served as the United Way chair in 1995 and was secretary-treasurer of the Sudbury Blueberry Festival, president of the childhood-enfance breakfast programs, co-chair of the FoodShare spring food drive, a member of the hospital restructuring transition team, and a board member of the Sudbury Regional Hospital.

Despite his many responsibilities as regional chair, he took time for little things. He attended with me last week at the official opening of the new site for the Garson Food Bank.

We will greatly miss his contribution.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): It was three years ago today that Ontarians made a choice to move away from the period of drought between 1985 and 1995. During this period, public confidence was low, unemployment was high, and many people were on welfare, with little hope.

It was on this day three years ago that the people of Ontario responded and made a choice for jobs, hope, growth and opportunity. They made this choice when they elected the Mike Harris government, and evidence shows that promises are being kept and Ontario is more prosperous today.

Sixty-six tax cuts have been implemented or announced during our mandate so far. Ontario's budget deficit has been cut in half and is on track to being eliminated. Over 263,000 people have left the welfare rolls since June 1995, almost a 20% decline.

Our education reform increases classroom spending, provides equal funding to separate schools, and protects $1 billion in funding for special education.

Health care spending is at $18.5 billion. It is now at the highest level in Ontario's history.

Unlike the previous two governments, we have kept our promises to reduce barriers to growth, and it is clear that Ontario has become a better place to live, work and raise a family. I regularly hear from constituents in Etobicoke about the prosperity they are now experiencing, and I look forward -

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

HATE CRIMES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Representatives of the community of St Catharines gathered at the B'nai Israel cemetery in St Catharines in a rededication ceremony that saw people of many faiths, ethnic backgrounds and political affiliations stand as one, side by side, with the Jewish community in a display of solidarity against hate and intolerance exemplified by the desecration of gravestones just a few weeks ago.

With Rabbi Martin Applebaum leading the service, Roman Catholic Monsignor Schaefer offering the opening prayer and the Central Gospel Temple Orchestra and Vocal Ensemble providing the music, those who were assembled at the cemetery on Sunday afternoon, through their attendance, expressed their revulsion at the acts of hateful vandalism perpetrated upon the gravestones of the Jewish deceased and their unity with Jewish people in St Catharines at a time of crisis.

Representatives of all levels of government, including the Attorney General of Ontario, were there to demonstrate the significance which all people of goodwill placed on the rededication of the gravestones and the memorial to the victims of the Holocaust.

The Niagara Regional Police Service, represented by Chief Grant Waddell, was the recipient of praise and commendation for its swift and thorough handling of this hate crime and its determination to deal with such incidents in the most serious manner.

The emotion of the day was shared not only by those of the Jewish faith but by everyone who gathered on that momentous occasion at the B'nai Israel cemetery.

Let it be known to all that the Jewish people of St Catharines will never stand alone.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm pleased to inform the House today that we are one step closer to achieving the third councillor for East York in the new city of Toronto. I want to again thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for his cooperation.

As you know, the minister had confirmed in the House, in response to my question, that he would support the achievement of a third councillor and would be willing to work with me in terms of the private member's bill. He had an outstanding concern, however, which was that the motion from the city of Toronto requested that the province pay for the by-election as a transition cost. The minister has said the government is not prepared to do that; they believe it is a municipal initiative and it should be paid for municipally. He sent a letter to that effect, in which he said:

"As you may know, Ms Frances Lankin, MPP for Beaches-Woodbine, has already introduced a private member's bill in order to add a third member to the East York ward by means of a by-election. We intend to work with the opposition parties. With unanimous consent, the bill can be accommodated on a crowded legislative agenda. In view of the above, I would like council to confirm whether the city is willing to pay for this by-election."

At last week's council meeting, council dealt with this issue. They passed the motion, indicating that the city would pay for the by-election. Now it's just a question of getting the private member's bill before the Legislature and passed and we will be able to achieve this. I, again, appreciate the cooperative effort that is going into this. The people of East York have fought long and hard for this. It is something they deserve, and I am sure they appreciate the cooperation on all sides of the House.

COBOURG BICENTENNIAL

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to congratulate the town of Cobourg on its 200th anniversary and to mention some of the events that are taking place throughout the year to celebrate this significant milestone.

Cobourg was first settled in 1798 and was named after the royal marriage of Princess Charlotte, daughter of King George IV, to Prince Leopold of the Bavarian state of Saxe-Coburg, Germany.

To celebrate its 200th anniversary, the town of Cobourg and the Heritage Cobourg committee have organized events all year long.

Since January, Cobourg has put on a gala ball, a Robbie Burns supper and a heritage film presentation.

Some of the upcoming events include an antique boat show, a German teddy bear collection display, a visit from citizens of Coburg, Germany, and a gala music concert.

It is important to recognize the industries, retailers and service organizations in Cobourg which have come together to find innovative ways to recognize this very special occasion.

I applaud the Cobourg council, the Heritage Cobourg committee and the volunteers who are planning and coordinating the many activities and events.

I encourage all members of this House to visit Cobourg and to tour the many historical landmarks, heritage homes and Cobourg's beautiful waterfront during its 200th anniversary celebration.

TUITION FEES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to bring to the attention of this House the government's appalling record and broken promises when it comes to our college and university students. Three years ago Mike Harris and Dave Johnson promised that "tuition fees should be allowed to rise over a four-year period to 25% of the operating costs." Right now, as it stands, tuition fees account for an average of 35% of operating costs, and they're on the rise.

The Tories promised changes to make OSAP work better for students. Debt loads continue to grow and grow. How have you responded? You promised an income-contingent loan repayment program, but you're unable to do anything about it yet because the banks won't touch this program. Why? Because student debt levels are too high and they want you to take some real action before they would consider getting involved.

Is OSAP more accessible? No way. Today it's harder for students to qualify. They have to live away from home longer, their parents have to contribute more and there's no loan program for part-time students.

There's more. The end of rent control will mean higher and higher living costs for students. Deregulation of tuition fees will mean that only the rich, not the most talented, need apply for professional programs like medical school, law school and business.

All government members should be ashamed of Mike Harris's and Dave Johnson's record on this issue. I know I'm proud to support my leader, Dalton McGuinty, in his commitment to freeze tuitions. I am so sorry that many government members are unwilling to make the same commitment to our young people.

WINDSOR CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): This Friday marks the beginning of the annual Carrousel of the Nations, Windsor's multicultural festival presented by the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County.

Over the course of the next two weekends Carrousel will pay tribute to the multicultural council's 25th anniversary. There will be 24 ethnocultural villages located in various parts of our community, including Polish, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, three Slovak villages, Slovenian, Pakistani, Irish, Macedonian, Scottish, two Ukrainian villages, Japanese, two Serbian villages, Korean, Latino, German, Greek, Hungarian and Caribbean.

I want to welcome a new arrival this year, the Arabic village. Almost half of these villages are located in the riding of Windsor-St Clair, and all will be presenting the best in traditional cuisine, entertainment and arts and crafts. Best of all, admission is free.

I want to recognize and express my thanks to Casino Windsor, sponsors of this year's Carrousel, and also say a special thank you to the hundreds of volunteers who make this event a success every year.

I invite everyone to come to Windsor over the next two weekends, tour the world, and experience a community where persons of different cultures celebrate Carrousel together.

FATHER BERNARD HAYES

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Last week I attended a celebration for Father Bernard Hayes of Kitchener on the 40th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood, along with hundreds of people whose lives he has touched in an extraordinary way. Father Bernie taught thousands of young men at the well-known St Jerome's high school in Kitchener. It's hard to believe that I have known Father Bernie for almost all of those 40 years. He taught me very shortly after being ordained and was the best teacher I ever had.

He is much loved, and I don't say that lightly. He is one of the most highly regarded, highly respected and loved men I have ever known. I enjoyed being one of his students but, more than that, when I needed sage advice, he was there. In short, Father Bernie Hayes became a friend, not only of mine but of my family. When I got married he celebrated the mass, when our daughter was born he baptised her. When I was still a high school student, Father Bernie cast me in the part of Charlie in the major play Charlie's Aunt, despite his doubts, while always encouraging me.

I have never forgotten his example. I used it in the raising of my own daughter. Even when she blew it as she was growing up, I would always try to guide her along. You see, Father Bernie Hayes has had an effect on not only those whose lives he touched directly, but on our children. He more than any other individual, other than my own father, affected the direction my life has taken.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to pay tribute to a man who, on the occasion of his 40th anniversary of being a priest, deserves all the recognition we can give him. I think it is fitting that in this House, where representatives of all the people of Ontario sit to do the province's business, I can pay tribute in front of all the people of Ontario to Father Bernie Hayes, my friend.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege today under standing order 21. I should point out that, pursuant to standing order 21(c), I have submitted this point of privilege to your office prior to 12:30, this morning.

Earlier today, in this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail, a request for proposal appeared from the Ontario Lottery Corp for mechanical spinning reel slot machines, or as they are more commonly known, one-armed bandits. That request for proposals reads,

"The Ontario Lottery Corp is issuing a request for proposals (RFP) on June 8, 1998, to select and acquire the mechanical spinning reel slot machines," that's one-armed bandits, "that best meet the financial and operational requirements of the charity casino and racetrack gaming program conducted and managed by the Ontario Lottery Corp."

Several weeks ago the government announced that rather than introducing video lottery terminals, that is, VLTs, into every neighbourhood in Ontario, it would instead introduce these so-called mechanical spinning reel slot machines which, as I've said, are better known as one-armed bandits. The distinction between VLTs and slot machines was not clear to most residents of Ontario.

My point of privilege is directed to Bill

Section 34,

Part VI of Bill 15, which is currently before the Legislature, repeals the definition of "video lottery terminal" contained in the Ontario Lottery Corp Act,

section 6,

chapter 26, 1996.

Mr Speaker, you are aware that Bill 15 has not yet been passed by this Legislature, and it has just in fact, I'm given to understand, begun committee hearings today. I seek your ruling on whether it's appropriate for the government, through the Ontario Lottery Corp, to be advertising a request for proposal for one-armed bandits that they intend to install in every neighbourhood in this province when in fact this Legislature has not passed the amendment to the Ontario Lottery Corp Act which would allow the government to do so.

This, in my view, presumes a decision of the Legislature before I, as a duly elected member of this Legislature, have had an opportunity to vote on this matter. In fact, I would question the appropriateness of Bill 75. If this amendment is not needed, does that mean that slot machines, or one-armed bandits, are perfectly legal anywhere else in the province? I await your decision on that matter.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I will report back to this House as soon as possible after reviewing the point of privilege.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The government has given notice of a motion for time allocation under standing order 46 which would not allow any debate at all - that's zero debate - on third reading on Bill 108,

An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration. That's the government name for it.

Under the present government in the first session of the 36th Parliament, that is 1995-1997, the Harris government moved time allocation 19 times. Eighteen of these motions time-allocated debate at various stages on 20 bills. These motions curtailed debate at third reading as follows: 14 of the time allocation motions allowed one sessional day of debate at third reading; two allowed two hours of debate at third reading; one allowed debate for the remainder of the sessional day on which the bill was called for third reading; and one allowed for no debate at all at third reading.

The time allocation motion which allowed no debate at all at third reading was approved on June 3, 1997, and applied to Bill 57, the Environmental Approvals Improvement Act. However, this motion was introduced after the House had already debated this bill for one sessional day at third reading, approximately four hours and 35 minutes, so the motion was in order.

Since standing order 46 was added to the standing orders in 1992, it has been invoked twice to introduce a time allocation motion which has allowed for no debate at all at third reading of a government bill. However, on both occasions the bill had already been debated for one sessional day at third reading.

I will ask you to make a determination, if you will, whether in fact this time allocation motion which would allow no debate at third reading is in order, considering the fact that there has been no debate already at third reading. It would in effect terminate, end, obliterate, any debate at third reading on this bill.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member, under what standing order are you standing on?

Mr Bradley: Standing order 46.

The Speaker: Forty-six what?

Mr Bradley: It just says standing order 46 in my note here. Maybe the government House leader can help me on this.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): To reinforce the point briefly, time allocation, by definition, usually allocates time for debate. In this particular case there is no time being allocated for debate. The motion states clearly that there will be no debate at third reading; there will simply be a vote. How on earth can we have a time allocation motion that does not allocate time?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I only refer to Bill -

Interjections.

The Speaker: If you want to stand and get into this you're more than welcome to. Right now, I'm trying to hear your government House leader. Could the place come to order, please. Government House leader.

Hon Mr Sterling: I would point out to the members of the Legislature that Bill 108 has had considerable debate to date. Before you can move time allocation, there is a requirement that there be at least three days of debate with regard to the bill on second reading and that during the time allocation motion there is another day of debate that primarily focuses on the bill as well, which is outside of the normal procedures. However, I guess the substance of it is that standing order 46 does not specify any minimum time requirement with regard to any part of our process that we go through. This motion is not unprecedented. I understand Bill 161 had no debate at all on third reading.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Was Bill 161 time-allocated?

Interjection.

The Speaker: I think I'll reserve with respect to this one as well. I want to get it clarified, exactly what it is we're searching for on this as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREATER HAMILTON AREA MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RESTRUCTURATION MUNICIPALE DANS LA RÉGION DU GRAND HAMILTON

Mr Skarica moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for the restructuring of municipal government in the Greater Hamilton Area / Projet de loi 32, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités afin de prévoir la restructuration des gouvernements municipaux dans la région du grand Hamilton.

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

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): This bill requires the minister to establish a commission to draft the necessary legislation to implement a restructuring proposal for the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth dated February 23, 1997, that the councils of the regional municipality and the area municipalities have approved in principle. Under the restructuring, the regional municipality would be dissolved on January 1, 2001. The commission is required to submit the draft to the minister within one year of the establishment of the commission. The minister is required to introduce legislation on or before November 1, 2000, to implement the restructuring.

SCHOOL CLASS SIZES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA TAILLE DES CLASSES SCOLAIRES

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act respecting the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a school class / Projet de loi 33, Loi concernant le nombre d'élèves pouvant être inscrits dans une classe scolaire.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Very briefly, this bill limits the number of pupils that may be enrolled in any class in any school in Ontario. The limit depends on the grade level of the class. It is not dependent on averages. If we're looking for fairness for all students, averages are not the way to go; capping class size is.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Mr Carroll moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

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

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): The legislation that I'm putting forward today would be a win for Ontario's environment and farmers. This bill would require a minimum oxygen content in gasoline offered for sale for motor vehicles. Such a measure would expand the use of more environmentally friendly fuels, such as ethanol. An expanded use of ethanol, which comes mainly from corn, means less carbon monoxide and less dependence on foreign imports, imports of oil, and a boon to farmers. I encourage all members of the House to join me in promoting a cleaner air bill for Ontario.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on June 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Statements by the ministry?

PETER WONG

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I join all members of the House today in expressing our collective shock and sadness at the sudden passing this past weekend of Sudbury Regional Chair Peter Wong. Mr Wong had dedicated much of his life to public service and improving life and promoting economic development in the Sudbury region in northern Ontario.

In fact, he was attending an annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities this past weekend. Mr Wong had recently won the first ever regional chair election. In the past he had served as a Sudbury Board of Education trustee for three terms, mayor of Sudbury for nine years, from 1982 to 1991, and vice-chair of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. He was also involved in many community organizations, most notably the campaign to eliminate drunk driving.

I, like many of my provincial colleagues, had the pleasure of meeting and working with Mr Wong. He was kind and courteous, a true gentleman. He presented his case intelligently and forthrightly. He was an eloquent -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't mean to interrupt you. I just have a tough time relating this to ministry statements.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, why don't we seek unanimous consent. Sorry, my fault.

Unanimous consent for statements? Agreed. Go ahead. Sorry.

Hon Mr Hodgson: He presented his cases, any time I had dealings with him, or any other members of this House, in an intelligent and forthright manner. Invariably, he had the interests of his constituents in his mind and in his heart. He was a true champion of Sudbury's causes.

Throughout the years, Mr Wong proved himself to be an inspired and compassionate leader. A soft-spoken man, he had a rare ability to smooth away differences between people and encourage those with different views to work together. His council colleagues will miss his quiet guidance.

Our thoughts are with his wife, Lynn, and children Eric and Nancy. Ontario has lost a true friend.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to thank the minister for those kind words. On behalf of the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury, certainly I know they will be comforting to Lynn and their two children.

Mayor Wong, now Regional Chair Wong, was a unique individual. He was able to bring all sides together to sit down and to talk in a rational, constructive way. He thought it was much better for him to build bridges than to destroy them.

He worked very hard in the seven months to ensure that the massive pressures that were being placed on the region for a variety of reasons were certainly not enough to break the region. He worked very hard to ensure that the restructuring of the region would be done in a very positive and constructive way.

He was also very active in ensuring that the people of the region felt a self-worth that only Peter could instil in people because of his very quiet approach to life. Peter believed that it was important for every individual within the regional municipality of Sudbury, every committee that he worked on, in fact all the committees that he was a part of an executive of, to ensure that they were very important in the total framework of life in their particular area or their particular concern.

He brought the best out in people because he showed through his example that any cause, regardless of how big or how small, was paramount and the most important thing we should be working on, given the situation that presented itself for the creation of such a committee or such a cause.

He will be sadly missed, not only because he was the first directly elected chair but he's going to be missed because he brought with him a unique style of leadership. Most of the time we see people being very gregarious and very outspoken, and actually going after headlines and media. Peter was exactly the opposite. Peter thought that if he approached a problem in a very quiet, concerned manner, the possibility of reaching a solution would happen much greater and much more quickly. You know, he was right.

Peter was able to bring to fruition success in achieving those goals that he had set for himself, those goals that he had set for his family, those goals that he had set for his city when he was the mayor of Sudbury, and those goals that he had set for the region as regional chair. He did it in a way that he, his family, his friends, his fellow politicians and the regional municipality of Sudbury residents can be very proud of.

Peter's wake will take place on Thursday between the hours of 2 and 5 and 7 and 9. There will be a public viewing at Civic Square, or the Tom Davies Square, as it's known now. There will be a funeral Friday afternoon at Christ the King church.

I might tell you that Peter Wong was 66, going on 67 very soon. In those 67 years, he lived a full, productive life, a life that will be characterized as one of caring, sharing, commitment and concern. What greater words can you have than to say that Peter Wong was a dedicated, determined, honest politician?

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I am pleased to join with my colleagues this afternoon in this Legislature to recognize the enormous contribution made by a very active member of our community, Mr Peter Wong. It's interesting, although somewhat sad, to have to note that in the last number of months our community has had its share of losses of truly worthy individuals who have led our community over a number of years from a very single-base economy devoted almost entirely to mining to one which is very diversified today.

A number of months ago we suffered the loss of the former chair, Tom Davies, and today we are grieving as a community the loss of the new chair, who was elected by the people for the first time in November 1997.

Peter Wong was a very different man in terms of his political style in relationship to the former chair. He was a very gentle man. All of us who knew him and had the honour of working with him saw how that was reflected daily, whether in his political life, which was very active, or in his community life, which again was very active in that he served for any number of years in any number of organizations to make the quality of life in our community just a little bit better.

In terms of his political life, it is worth repeating in the House that he was the mayor of the city of Sudbury for nine years. He also served as a regional councillor during that whole time. He served for three terms as a trustee for the Sudbury Board of Education. He was a regional director for the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. He was also a director of the Ontario Good Roads Association. He served as a vice-chair for the Ontario Highway Transport Board, and also served as a vice-chair for the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.

It was in that capacity and connection that I knew him best. At the time that I was Minister of Northern Development, I appointed him as a director for NOHFC, and then the collective determined that he should be vice-chair. He served in that capacity, trying to better the lives of people in northern Ontario, very honourably over the time that he was vice-chair.

In terms of his involvement with the community, he served in a number of capacities in a number of sectors. He was the chairperson for the Sudbury Blueberry Festival. He was, in 1995, the chair for the United Way campaign. He was a director for the breakfast programs in our community. He was a director as well of a campaign against drunk drivers. He was on the transition team for the new Sudbury regional hospital, and after the new corporation was established he also became a board member. He was a director as well of the FoodShare spring food drive, which he took an active interest in.

It's interesting, though, that despite his large and long political and community career, some of the very little things were the most important to Peter Wong, and I think most people in our community will remember him for these things. Despite his many onerous responsibilities as regional chair, he took the time to go to any number of events that were being sponsored in the community. Last Saturday, for example, I had the pleasure of being with him when we opened up the new site for the Garson Food Bank in that community.

As a director of the food drive it was very important for him to be there, and he was at a number of events for the food drive all during the month of May. Later in the afternoon, he came to my community of Capreol, and there he participated in the annual inspection of the Irish cadet corps. In fact, he inspected the cadet corps that afternoon. He always took time, despite how busy he was, to do some of the small things where there wasn't media attention or wasn't media attraction but where it was very important for him to have a presence.

We will greatly miss Peter Wong. He has made an enormous contribution to the life of my community. We wish his wife, Lynn, and his son and his daughter all the best. We give them our sympathy. We know that our community will not be the same without Peter Wong.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Deputy Premier. I thought it only appropriate, this being the third anniversary of the election of the Mike Harris government, that we take a moment to reflect on some of your government's special accomplishments.

I want to start with health care. As you know, Deputy Premier, health care is an important measure for Ontarians as to how well their government is doing or not doing. I want you to comment, if you would, on the fact that now we enjoy the privilege of being dead last in Canada when it comes to the number of nurses we have available for our patients in hospitals in Ontario. What kind of an accomplishment do you feel that is, to be dead last in Canada in having the lowest number of nurses available for our patients in Ontario?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm sure the Minister of Health will be happy to respond.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We certainly recognize the concerns of the nursing organizations in Ontario and that's why we have been moving forward very aggressively in recent months to address the concerns that have been expressed by the organizations, and recently we have moved forward. We have indicated we're prepared to invest $5 million to ensure that nurse practitioners can be well utilized throughout Ontario in underserviced areas particularly, and into the community health centres as well.

We've also indicated to the nurses that we're setting up the nurses task force so that we can respond very specifically to the concerns they have about the role of nurses in the province at the present time and how we can ensure that patient care continues to be, first and foremost, on the minds of everyone. Certainly we are addressing and we are responding to the concerns that have been identified.

Mr McGuinty: Back to the Deputy Premier. So we're last in the country now when it comes to the number of nurses available for our patients. Let's take a look at some of your accomplishments in education.

As we struggle to build a knowledge-based economy and as everybody understands the importance of investing in knowledge in our young people, tell me, how does it feel to know that we are last in the country when it comes to the amount of funding that we have available for our universities on a per capita basis? We are the lowest funder per capita for our universities in this province of Ontario than in any other province in Canada. On top of that, we will shortly be charging the most for post-secondary education of all of the provinces.

We're last in funding, soon to be first in the cost of university and college education. Tell me, how does it feel, Deputy Premier, knowing that those are more of your wonderful accomplishments?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The Minister of Health has the floor.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I will refer it back to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Mr Eves: I don't know if the Leader of the Opposition was here on budget day or not, but there were several items in the budget, in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars that benefit the post-secondary education community in Ontario. If he happened to be listening to CFRB this morning, he would have heard the president of the University of Waterloo, Mr Downey, talk in glowing terms about a number of the measures that this government has taken with respect to post-secondary university education. You can snicker and laugh if you want. If you don't value the opinion of a true leader in the educational community, the president of the University of Waterloo, you should stand up and say so.

Mr McGuinty: So we're dead last in Canada when it comes to the nurses available for our patients, we're dead last in funding for our universities, and we'll shortly be first in the cost of tuition in all the country.

Let's turn to the fiscal aspect for a moment here. This is a government that has proclaimed the evils of the debt for ages and told us how the previous government, the NDP government, had more than doubled the debt. This government now has the privilege of talking about its special accomplishment of adding $16 billion to our debt as a result of expenditures on a tax cut that we can't afford.

I want the Deputy Premier, also Minister of Finance, to stand up and tell us how proud he is of the fact that he is adding $16 billion to our provincial debt, a legacy for the next generation of taxpayers, as a result of money that he's spending on a tax cut that we can't afford.

Hon Mr Eves: That is truly Liberal math. Your government and their government built the debt in this province, I agree, to a totally intolerable rate of $100 billion. Does the leader of the official opposition -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry I caused all that commotion for a brief period of time.

I wonder if the leader of the official opposition has any idea what the interest on $100 billion worth of debt is. Obviously not. Those were your priorities - your priorities - and your priorities were to spend over $9 billion a year on interest payments; those are not our priorities.

The leader of the official opposition talks about Ontarians not being able to afford a tax cut. We have reduced taxes, as he knows, some 66 times in three years and we've generated $3.3 billion more in revenue -

The Speaker: New question.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Chair of Management Board. You will remember that a week ago today I raised a very serious allegation regarding conflict of interest with respect to the awarding of the Niagara Falls casino contract. Specifically, I asked you if it was true that Michael French, your government's point person on the Niagara Falls casino bidding process, was also on the payroll of one of the bidders, in fact the winning bidder.

Minister, you've had a week to look into this. It's been eight days since the story was made public. Tell me today, was your point person on the Niagara Falls casino contract also working for one of the bidders, yes or no?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As I told the House last week, I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers to report back in full. There are conflict of interest guidelines. I've asked their lawyers to investigate this and report back to me. I expect their report some time this week.

Mr McGuinty: There's every indication here, Minister, that you are quite simply stalling. If the news was good, if the facts were exculpatory, if they put you and your government in a good light, what that would mean -

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Is "exculpatory" parliamentary? We don't use big words like that in our caucus.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock. Order. Exculpatory: For the member for Nepean, that's in order. It's not as bad a thing as you think, actually.

Mr Baird: I didn't know what "exculpatory" meant. I was nervous.

The Speaker: Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I apologize, Speaker. I will refrain from using big words.

Minister, if the facts put you and your government in a good light, I believe you would have put those facts on the table long before today. Once again, you're the guy in charge, this has happened on your watch and you bear ultimate responsibility for this process. Why don't you have that answer for us today, right now, in this Legislature? Have you phoned anybody? Have you contacted anybody and said, "Give me the answer because I need it for the House"?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition can put those big words on any documents he wants to, out to the public. We can't run government by innuendo. We can't ask for flip, quick, instantaneous responses to meet the question period time line. What I have asked the Ontario Casino Corp is to ask their legal counsel to report to me in writing on the serious innuendo that's been raised, first in a newspaper

article and then repeated in this House. I've asked them to do that in a thorough manner to try to get at the facts of the issue. I've told you that when I receive that, and I expect it later on this week, I'll report that at that time and do the appropriate thing.

Mr McGuinty: On the one hand it's a very, very serious matter, but on the other it is simple. The issue here is quite clear: Has Mr French been involved with another company which happened to win the bid or not? Has the guy you appointed to run the competition for this contract been involved with the winning bid or not? Yes or no? You don't need to conduct some kind of legislative inquiry to get to that. All you've got to do is stand up in the House today and provide us with the information you already have.

Is he or is he not in a position of conflict of interest? We need to know that now. It's completely unacceptable for you to continue to stall. If you can't provide us with that information, if you won't provide us with that information, then I suggest to you, Minister, that you ought to step aside and let somebody else do the job.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I've tried to explain to the Leader of the Opposition that in a matter with this serious an innuendo that has been raised, you can't just snap your fingers and say, "I want it now because I want it."

I've asked OCC, the Ontario Casino Corp, which is responsible for the selection process, to ask their lawyers, a respected law firm, to give me in writing the facts around this matter. It's taking a bit of time, and they've told me they want to do it in a thorough manner and that they'll have that to me some time this week.

The Speaker: New question, third party, the member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is also to the Chair of Management Board. That's exactly why we have been asking for the last number of weeks that this issue should go out to a public inquiry, because you know that for the last couple of weeks your government has been embroiled in a scandal. The casino affair reeks of political payola. We know there are serious allegations surrounding the role of Michael French in the awarding of the Niagara Falls casino to Falls Management, a company that is owned in part by the Latner family, a family that donated over $48,000 in 1995-96 to the Conservative Party.

You told us, and you reiterated today, that the Ontario Casino Corp, through its lawyers Davies Ward and Beck, is investigating possible conflict of interest in the selection process. I just want you to be clear on the record that when you get that report later this week, you will make it public right away. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I've been quite clear on that matter for the last week. Our position has not changed. But I can tell you that the Latner family has done business with this province for over 20 years. I pointed out last week a number of dealings they had with your party. To make spurious allegations against this family without any fact is regrettable. If you have facts - that's what we're interested in - tell them to us. The innuendo around Michael French is a serious innuendo, and I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp, through their lawyers, to give me a written report on that.

Mr Silipo: If you stopped stalling the investigation or a public inquiry from taking place, then all of that information would come out. The long and the short of it is that this is your government's Patti Starr affair. I want to remind you what your Premier, Mike Harris, said at the time. "The message appears clear: If you donate money to a Liberal campaign, if you're friends with a Liberal cabinet minister, this government will look after you." That's what Mike Harris said then, and that's exactly what your government is doing for the Latner family companies.

We've raised with you this issue of $48,000 that the various companies controlled by the Latner family have donated to the Tory party in 1995 or 1996. But in 1997 alone the Latner family companies paid an additional $41,500 to the Tory party coffers. That's in one year alone. That brings the total to almost $90,000, and we're still looking. It's clear that the various companies owned by the Latner family must be very happy with the policies of your government.

Again I ask you, will you come clean? Will you agree to a public inquiry so we can get to the bottom of this situation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The allegations around the Latner family, I think we've told you, are nonsense. Under your government, there was $83 million for social housing alone. Last week I went through some of the areas where they gave these contracts out. A family you're trying to smear in this House day after day has done business with all three parties over the last 20 years. The innuendo about Michael French is serious, and I've asked the OCC to investigate that through their lawyers, and they'll report back some time later this week.

Mr Silipo: The issue you continue to ignore completely is not so much the Latner family as individuals; we're talking about the kind of political influence money seems to be able to buy in your government. Minister, $90,000 certainly seems to buy a lot with your government. We know about Dynacare and the regulation you passed. We know about Greenwin Property Management and how they benefited from gutting rent control. We know about Comcare and how they benefited from privatized home care. We know about Gaming Venture Group and how they were given a bunch of charity casinos. We all know about Falls Management being bumped from number three to number one.

The public deserves answers. This reeks of Mulroney-style politics. When are you going to call a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Hodgson: This question has been asked over and over again in the last week. It's totally unfounded; it's a lot of nonsense. I'm trying to proceed here to get to the facts of this in the most open and transparent manner I can. If you have any more of these innuendoes that you'd like to spread around, I suggest you do it outside the House, where you're held accountable for your statements.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a very different kind of question to the Minister of Health.

You will be aware that Dr Luigi Di Bella is here, starting yesterday, talking to patients, doctors and the public about his treatment for cancer. I want to ask you this question in the most non-partisan way I possibly can and hope that your answer will follow suit. You know the high incidence of cancer, that it's rising by 3% and that there are 23,000 deaths every year from it, many of them many people say preventable. There is a great deal of fear about these statistics and it's therefore no surprise that there is a great deal of interest, not just here in Canada and in Italy but across the world, in Dr Di Bella's treatment.

People need hope and they need to know that research into new treatments is continuing. There are a number of issues around this question, some of them, like the clinical trials, which we know are predominantly within the federal sphere of responsibility.

Minister, I would like to ask you, as the minister provincially, to commit yourself on behalf of the people of Ontario to do what you can within your role with respect to those clinical trials and other areas where you can cooperate in ensuring that this treatment is looked into.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We certainly appreciate and know that there are many people in this province who suffer from cancer and we're looking at treatments that will deal with the disease. I can certainly indicate that on behalf of the Ministry of Health we would not be opposed to any clinical trials, but as you have pointed out, we are not in a position to make those decisions. We depend upon the research community to make decisions as to what clinical trials will take place. Certainly, we would not stand in the way and we would be prepared to support those.

Mr Silipo: I thank the minister for that answer. Let me ask you about something that is more closely within the provincial domain. That is the whole area of prescribing medicines for treatment. As you know - it's my understanding, and I may or may not be correct in this - the various medicines and vitamins that form part of Dr Di Bella's treatment are individually prescribable. In fact, they may or may not be also prescribable as a package, as part of the treatment.

That is one of the areas where there seems to be some ambiguity, but certainly some uncertainty about whether doctors in Ontario, for example, would be able to prescribe that treatment if they felt in their professional judgement that it was something that was in the best interests of the patient suffering from cancer.

Minister, I'd like to ask you if you would be prepared to clarify that and, most important, work with the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and doctors to ensure that that information is available to doctors, and whatever barriers exist in the way of doctors being able to use this treatment, if they feel in their professional judgement that it's appropriate, for them to be able to use that.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I understand that Dr Di Bella is going to be making a presentation to the medical community. Obviously, at that time they will have an opportunity to ask him questions. As you know, our ministry requires scientific evidence in order to assist us in making decisions as to how our resources are going to be allocated. So obviously there is going to be that opportunity for questions, and based on whatever scientific information is provided, appropriate decisions would be made by the Ministry of Health.

Mr Silipo: I, like I believe members from all parties, was present at the press conference this morning. Some of us I believe are meeting with Dr Di Bella this afternoon. One of the things that struck me in his presentation this morning was his point in terms of evaluating his treatment, the need to compare that treatment that builds on using a variety of ingredients that are familiar to the organism, as opposed to the kinds of treatments that exist and are in use now, but his sense of the need to compare those treatments to the existing treatments that are available now.

Again, Minister, I ask you, will you ensure that in the discussion that happens there is a completely open mind about this and that you will play, as minister, the role that you can, understanding that the decisions need to be made through the medical community but that you will ensure discussion happens and that we do whatever we can to ensure that people have the information and that doctors particularly feel comfortable in knowing they have at their disposal all of the information necessary so that they can make the professional decision?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I say again, we rely on the scientific information and evidence that is presented to us, and that then enables us to make decisions at the Ministry of Health as to how we are going to be allocating our health resources. Certainly in this situation we would treat that particular treatment and therapy in the same way as we would treat all others. It would go through the same channels.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Over the weekend we became aware of an auto worker from Woodstock whose name is Brian Cox. He launched a petition to your government, the Ontario government, asking for more funding for special education after his son David, aged 12, with attention deficit disorder, lost the extra help he was getting in school.

Deputy Premier, you may know that schools are losing their educational assistants right across Ontario. To date, 547 educational assistants have lost their jobs. How does this fit in with your plan that the disabled community will not lose aid?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I am aware of the issue that the honourable member raises in the House today. I would like to remind her that for the first time ever in the province of Ontario's history, there is $1 billion that is being set aside for special education needs in Ontario.

One can debate whether or not -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That's not new money.

Hon Mr Eves: Just a minute. I didn't say it was new money. For the first time, boards are going to be held accountable, I say to the member for Algoma, and the Minister of Education is going to ensure that that money is indeed spent on special education needs -

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): They need it now.

Hon Mr Eves: - which has not always been the case in every single board for every single dollar in the past, I say to the member for Fort William, when you were on watch, so to speak.

Mrs Pupatello: You cannot hold them accountable when you are now holding the cards for funding of school boards. It is your new formula now that is making the situation even worse.

Brian Cox said that his son is bright but is having difficulty this year. His son David's frustration is leading to discipline problems such as fights at school.

The Thames Valley District School Board confirmed 40 layoff notices to 40 educational assistants last week. This means that the problem will get worse. His MPP will not return his phone calls.

Deputy Premier, you said, "No cuts to the disabled." You said, "Not one cent from the classroom." What do you say to Brian Cox and his son David?

Hon Mr Eves: I'd be more than happy, and I'm sure the Minister of Education will be, to look into the particular circumstances about this particular case. But I do want to reiterate to the honourable member that the fact remains that in the funding formula that the Minister of Education has announced, classroom spending funding has been increased by $583 million. We've increased spending on educational assistants by $15.6 million.

I would also like to inform the honourable member about the viewpoint of Mary Margaret Laing, chair of the Ontario Parent Council, about the funding model for special education needs, the very thing that the member is talking about. "This model recognizes the special learning needs of many students and provides funding to meet those diverse needs. Boards will be able to spend these grant amounts directly on their students, rather than on the vast amount of administrative resources which have gone into special education up until now." We are trying to change the system, I say to the honourable member, for the benefit of students like Brian Cox.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Deputy Premier regarding education as well. It might be helpful to the government if they would listen to some of the school parent councils rather than the government-appointed Ontario Parent Council, because parents, as well as teachers and students and other staff of boards, are rallying today because of the cutbacks in the so-called funding formula.

Here is one of the examples of the cuts they are protesting: The government's cutbacks formula gives $75 per elementary student and $100 per secondary student for textbooks, computer software and library materials, yet for a typical grade 11 student taking seven academic courses, the cost of textbooks alone is more than $400. Could the minister explain where the other $300 is going to come from to meet the students' needs for textbooks? How are the boards going to come up with this $300 per student?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I hope the honourable member's figures on secondary textbooks are better than his figures on elementary, because what's happening in the elementary system is that we are already spending $76 per student at the elementary level, and we have doubled that amount to $152 per elementary student. That's not what you just said a few moments ago.

Mr Wildman: Since the minister doesn't want to deal with grade 11, perhaps he would deal with the fact that students in classrooms in both elementary and secondary are doing without needed resources under the cutbacks formula announced by the government, and yet at the same time the Education Quality and Accountability Office, which has just finished administering grade 3 tests, has tendered for catering for marking that test to a cost of $250,000. Does the minister think it would be a better idea to have the $250,000 that has been tendered for catering for grade 3 test marking as money spent in classrooms to ensure quality Canadian textbooks for students?

Hon Mr Eves: I say very directly to the honourable member, no, I do not consider that to be money spent in the classroom, and I would be more than happy to take that situation under advisement and refer it to the Minister of Education upon his return.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Two weeks ago Warren Bailie, chief electoral officer of Ontario, tabled a report, Looking to the Future: Electoral Reform in Ontario. This report outlined Mr Bailie's recommendations for changes in Ontario's electoral system, a system that has not been updated for 12 years.

I understand that you chaired a meeting recently with Mr Bailie and Jean-Pierre Kingsley, chief electoral officer of Canada, at the end of April. Can you tell me and the members of this Legislature what initiatives the federal government has undertaken with election reform and the savings they expect to achieve?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): You're aware of the report, because of course it was sent to you and all members of this Legislative Assembly.

I did meet with Mr Kingsley and Mr Bailie, and it was brought to my attention, any update from the federal point of view. This was in the form of an establishment of a central registry of voters. This has been worked on for a number of years, and we now know that this is going to be more accurate by using sources from both the federal and provincial ministries. Here in Ontario, the data will be from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations as well as the Ministry of Transportation, and we have interim agreements in that regard.

Mr Kingsley advised me also that with this federal register of electors, we are expecting to save in excess of some $40 million here in Ontario. I think that's important.

Mr O'Toole: That certainly makes very good sense to me.

As I mentioned earlier, Ontario's election officer has tabled his report, and I notice that he has recommended the same changes as his federal counterpart, specifically a permanent voters' list. I understand that this initiative, along with combining the bureaucracies of the election finances commission and Elections Ontario into one, is expected to save an enormous amount of taxpayers' money.

Minister, can you tell me how much money will be saved and what effect combining the two bureaucracies will have, besides eliminating duplication and waste?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'd like to make myself clear with regard to the answer. The federal register of electors will save us some $40 million. Here in Ontario, just looking at bringing ourselves in line, I might say, with all the other provinces, one of the results of the recommendations of looking to the future electoral reform in Ontario, if we were to look at a permanent voters' list, which is what we're looking at, we would save ourselves about $10 million in this regard.

I think it's interesting, Mr Speaker, for you and I who've been around for a little while but certainly not 30 years, that these recommendations were actually made in Ontario some 30 years ago, so the reform that we're looking at has been long-standing, something that governments have looked at since this first suggestion by the Ontario select committee on election laws, and I think it's long overdue. We now have two separate bureaucracies and the taxpayers of this province should only be supporting one - $10 million saving.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My question is to the Minister of Health. In the county of Elgin there is an extreme problem with a lack of rural physicians. Right now the count I think we have is about 16 less than what we should have in Elgin county. In the west end of Elgin county, in the Rodney area, it is devastating right now in terms of the loss of physicians, and we're losing even more in the next few weeks. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the Ministry of Health and her office are doing with regard to a lack of physicians in rural Ontario.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Certainly I'm quite familiar with the Rodney area. Our government has taken initiatives beyond what had been taken in the past to ensure that we can provide the doctors to communities throughout the province, not only in the rural and urban areas of this province but also in the north. I would encourage you to make sure that all the steps have been taken to make the Ministry of Health aware of the situation that is faced by those people.

Mr North: Some time ago Elgin county had various parts of it designated "underserviced." We too have had some experience with regard to the program for northern Ontario. We actually had a doctor in the Rodney area who was enticed to move to northern Ontario under the circumstances provided by the Ministry of Health. I wonder if you could tell the people of west Elgin what you will do to ensure that a large majority of seniors in west Elgin will have a physician in the very near future.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Regarding the individuals who live in west Elgin, as I've just said, our government has moved forward. We have introduced incentive plans. As the member has indicated, these people have been designated "underserviced." That does enable them to have some special and unique opportunities to encourage physicians to come to their community. The problem in this province continues to be that while we do have the number of physicians to serve the people, the difficulty is encouraging those individuals to leave the urban and teaching centres to go to areas where they are most needed.

We have not only introduced incentives, we have also introduced disincentives where people are penalized for staying in the overserviced areas, and we will continue to move forward with any further suggestions that we get regarding how we can encourage doctors to locate in those areas where they're most needed. I am pleased that some of the academic health science centres now are going to be taking steps to move some of their students -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, official opposition.

CLASS SIZE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Your government's revolution in education is leading to complete chaos in the classroom and to impossible choices for school boards.

Last week the Lakehead board of education found itself having to decide which of your laws to break: the law about class size or the law about staying within your financial limits. The trustees chose to keep teachers in the classroom. As the director of education said, "What the board decided was that if it was going to contravene the law, it would do it on behalf of children."

Minister, you have not given them enough money to pay for enough teachers to meet the class size averages that you have made law, so the board will be in a deficit position unless you revisit your funding formula. Will you give the Lakehead board the funding they need to do what your own law requires, and if your answer is no, will you please tell the board which one of your laws you think they should break?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the honourable member, I'm sure the Minister of Education would be more than happy to talk to the director of education for the Lakehead board about specific concerns of that particular board; however, there is one thing that the government is committed to, and I want her to understand that. We are the first government that has taken a step in putting a limit on class size that has been growing quite rapidly over the last few years with respect to negotiations between individual boards and various teachers' federations across the province, and we are determined to keep the ceiling at 22 and 25 students per board.

Mrs McLeod: The problem, Minister, is that boards need enough dollars to pay for enough teachers to meet those average class sizes that you have mandated. The problem is not just a problem with the Lakehead board; the problem is with the funding formula and your financing of education, and the problem is that you are part of a government that has chosen to take control over everything and take responsibility for absolutely nothing.

The Superior-Gemstone board is another board which has made a decision to keep teachers in the classroom. They have no idea how they're going to pay for it. Your colleague Jack Carroll is trying to get $5 million more for the Lambton-Kent board so they don't have to make drastic cuts to the classroom. The Avon-Maitland board, one of the lowest-spending public boards in the province, has come up short. Doug Rollins from Quinte is engaged in an ongoing debate with his board about how they could possibly be facing the kind of cuts they're facing.

The bottom line, Minister, is that your funding formula is an absolute mess and the chaos is going to hit kids in the classroom in September unless you go back to the drawing board. I ask you, are you going to fix the mess of the funding formula or will your Minister of Education have to exercise the new power he has, step in and take over the Lakehead board and the Superior-Gemstone board and every other board that can't make your rules work and find -

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

Hon Mr Eves: I just want to point out a few facts to the honourable member with respect to education formula funding in the province of Ontario. The education funding formula announced by the Minister of Education will result in $583 million more being spent in the classroom at its fruition. I understand that. I also want her to listen to the next two points.

In the budget of May 5 this year, we set aside a special fund at the request of the Minister of Education of some $69 million to deal with in-year or stub-year funding problems for particular boards and the Minister of Education has a $385-million transition fund for exactly those types of transition problems that the honourable member is talking about. I urge those boards to talk to the Minister of Education and talk about access to that $385 million.

CASINO WINDSOR

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Over and over again we've raised issues about the Niagara casino deal, a deal that stinks of conflict of interest and payoff to the Conservative Party. But there's another story that's close to my community with respect to the Windsor casino, and it's a story that stinks of incompetence.

Recently you announced that you may keep three casinos open in Windsor, but the Ontario Casino Corp had already announced that they were returning the Northern Belle to Hilton. Then you announced you intend to keep it open, at least for a while.

My question is about the interim casino in the art gallery building. Working conditions are less than ideal and the art gallery is anxious to plan for their future. Minister, will you commit today that the interim casino in the art gallery will close when the permanent casino opens?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member of the third party is aware, or should be aware, that an agreement was entered into by the NDP government back in 1993 which stated that the art gallery would either revert back to an art gallery or there would be compensation, and I can tell him that we will live up to the 1993 agreement.

Mr Lessard: You still haven't answered my question about committing to close the interim casino when the permanent opens.

Let me ask you about the other casino, the one that was in the Northern Belle. I understand that the Ontario Casino Corp paid $23 million for the use of the Northern Belle. The lease was supposed to run out in two days, that is, June 10. The option to extend that lease was missed because of your failure to communicate with the Ontario Casino Corp.

This wouldn't have happened if you were doing your job, Minister. Can you tell us how much it cost to extend the lease for the Northern Belle? How much did your dithering cost the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Hodgson: If the member opposite didn't like the agreement that his government made in 1993, he should say so. Otherwise, we're going to live up to that agreement.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. I've asked you questions previously dealing with the criminal courts backlog in Scarborough and I'm pleased that you've dealt with that issue. I know my constituents in Scarborough Centre are very pleased that you've dealt with this very serious issue that we inherited three years ago today when we formed the government.

My question today deals with the cost in delays within the civil justice system, and it too is a very real concern to my constituents in Scarborough Centre. Minister, what is the Ministry of the Attorney General doing to address my constituents' concerns and reform the civil justice system in this province?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Thank you for the question from the member from Scarborough. Once again, Ontario is leading the way for the rest of the country in civil justice reform. We're introducing a case management system across the province over the next four years which will ensure that cases move forward and backlogs don't exist. We're also developing a comprehensive system of information technology so that all parts of the justice system will be able to communicate with one another.

We are as well developing a pilot project now that's under way involving electronic filing of documents with our courts so that law firms can file documents from their offices to the court and that operates seven days a week, 22 hours a day.

The Ministry of the Attorney General is also working on the development of the first rule of civil procedure in Canada dealing with mandatory mediation for all appropriate non-family civil cases. We hope that rule will be implemented very shortly so that parties to litigation will have an early opportunity to try and resolve disputes by mediation.

Mr Newman: As a supplementary to the Attorney General, I'm pleased to hear that you are responding to the changes in the civil justice system, but how will this new mandatory mediation program benefit the people of Scarborough Centre, and in fact the people of this province?

Hon Mr Harnick: The mandatory mediation rule will involve an opportunity for litigants in the civil system, at an early stage, before proceedings really begin beyond the exchange of pleadings, to be able to mediate their dispute, to be able to sit with one another, the parties involved in the litigation, with their counsel, with a mediator, and begin the process of trying to resolve the dispute before the litigation really has to begin and before serious costs are incurred.

We've had two pilot projects, one in Toronto and one in Ottawa. The one in Ottawa is ongoing. It involves private sector mediators. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that as a result of the work in Ottawa, most individuals who are involved in litigation have access to mandatory mediation in Ottawa, and I'm pleased to say that about six out of 10 cases that are filed with the court go to mandatory mediation within 60 days of the delivery of a statement of defence and are settled.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The Harris government and the Ministry of Agriculture spent a lot of money on a task force which toured the province looking into the problems facing rural youth. The Rural Youth Strategy Report identifies access to services as an incentive to creating jobs and keeping young people in rural areas.

On one hand, the government says it wants to invest in rural development, but then you have, through your Minister of Education, come up with an educational funding formula that is ripping the heart out of rural Ontario.

I have a letter from Robert Shepherd, chairman of the Romney School Advisory Council. Their school has been identified for closure because of a $17-million shortfall from your government for the Lambton-Kent school board. Mr Shepherd says: "It's because we are a small rural school. The only important thing is saving money."

Parents are also concerned that another eight rural schools are in danger. At what cost? The destruction of rural communities? The government has closed vehicle licensing and other government offices in rural communities. You are planning to close rural hospitals. Now the viability of rural communities is on the line with rural school closures. Will you promise to keep rural schools open?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): There is no policy of the Ontario government that is mandating or instructing or suggesting that rural schools should close.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Get real.

Hon Mr Eves: I can say to the honourable member that I happen to represent more rural municipalities than any other member of the Ontario Legislature. I represent some 35 organized rural municipalities and some 42 unorganized municipalities in Ontario. If anybody understands the needs and priorities of people in rural Ontario and their school system and how much it means to them, it's me. I can tell you, there is no such policy that the province has.

Mr Hoy: With your answer, Minister, I'm sure that you will sympathize with the people from Romney Central school and I know you can relate to their very deep concerns. That school was not built by the board of education. It was built by local funds and run by the local community. A shortfall from your government, under your funding model, of $17 million has caused the Lambton-Kent board to have very little choice in this matter.

The former Kent county board was one of the most frugal boards in all of Ontario. It was recognized by your government's Who Does What panel for its effectiveness in savings, yet it has received the highest level of cuts in the province. Minister, what will you do to ensure that your funding cuts will not force the boards to close schools, like Romney Central, that are the very heart of the rural communities you say you support?

Hon Mr Eves: I will certainly be happy to take the very facts that he talks about in this particular circumstance back to the Minister of Education. However, as I said to the member for Fort William earlier, in response to a question that she asked, there are several avenues of support for boards of education across the province. Ultimately, of course, there will be another $583 million in the education system, but I understand that may not help boards in a transitional situation.

Hence, the Minister of Education has some $385 million in a transitional fund and some $69 million for boards that are having in-year, stub-year problems with respect to expenditures as the result of amalgamation of boards.

I'd be more than happy, though, as I reiterated, to take those facts back to the Minister of Education.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you would know that as a result of your government's cuts to provincial hospital budgets, hospitals across Ontario are cutting back on hospital services offered to people.

Let me draw your attention to but one example of the effects your cuts are having on the people in our community. As a result of your cuts at the Timmins and District Hospital, the Timmins and District Hospital board has decided to lay off Doug Heath, the only behavioural therapist in our community. That means, for example, that people with eating disorders, as well as other behavioural disorders, have no one to turn to.

Minister, I ask you a very simple question. Are you prepared today to commit to restore the adequate budgets to hospitals like the Timmins and District Hospital in order to ensure they can reverse these types of decisions so people in our communities don't go without services?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I would just remind the member that our government has actually increased the funding for health care in the province of Ontario. When we were elected, we were spending $17.4 billion. We have seen the increased need in order that we can provide a continuum of care that starts with prevention, primary care, acute care, long-term care and community services. In fact, we've recently invested $1.2 billion into community care and long-term-care services.

We are going to do everything we can in order to ensure that people have the appropriate health services as close to their home as we can possibly provide them. Today, we're spending in the neighbourhood of $18.7 billion, an increase of almost $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion a year.

Mr Bisson: Minister, nobody buys it. Everybody knows it's your government, and you're the minister who has reduced hospital budgets by over $2 billion in this province. It means that in communities across Ontario we're having situations such as are happening at the Timmins and District Hospital. Boards are being forced to lay off much-needed staff and citizens in our communities are going without public health services.

I have here a letter written by Molly Mignacco, one of the letters that appeared recently in the Timmins Daily Press. It reads as follows - and I think it's interesting - "I was under the impression that maintaining and improving services was to be the primary consideration, and laying off the only behavioural therapist certainly does not meet with that criteria." People understand what your cuts are doing. We're going without the services.

I ask you again, will you reverse the decision that your government has made to cut hospital budgets in this province so that we can go on with making sure that people in communities like Timmins, as across Ontario, can access the services they need when they get sick?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our government is taking steps that should have been taken many years ago; that is, we are ensuring that the appropriate health services are in place, that we can support the people in this province. As I've just mentioned to you, we are spending more on health care than we ever have in the history of this province.

In fact, I would just remind the member opposite that during the first year of the NDP rule there were 61 hospitals in this province that had a deficit. In the last year of your rule, there were 68 hospitals. This is the problem we find ourselves with in this province. Because of the neglect of previous governments we are now trying to ensure that the appropriate services are in place to deal with the needs of our aging, growing and changing population. We are reinvesting in the hospitals and we are making available priority services that were not there before. We continue to work with the hospitals to ensure that the appropriate services are provided.

RENT REGULATION

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last week, there was a story in the paper about a woman named Nancy Campbell who had to pay $1,200 in back rent. This problem dates back to 1990 when she appealed a rent increase under the Liberals' rent control system. Clearly, a system that takes several years to resolve one person's appeal doesn't work well for tenants and doesn't work well for landlords.

The current system, brought in by the NDP, has had the effect of almost totally stopping construction of new rental properties altogether and allowing the existing stock to deteriorate. Minister, can you tell this House what our government is doing to make the system more fair and more responsive to everyone - landlords and tenants?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for York East for that very good question. I'd be more than pleased to tell the House what this government is going to do to correct the mess that's out there right now.

The example used was of a system that was so complex and so confusing that it took the courts eight years to find out that there was a $1,200 rent increase due - eight years. That's how complex and messy the rent control system the Liberals had in was. There was no new construction. The stock was deteriorating. There was certainly insufficient protection for tenants and landlords both.

What are we going to do? We're going to put in a system that protects tenants and also gives an incentive to landlords to get back into the building business. We said our first goal is to make sure that tenants are protected and the new Tenant Protection Act does just that.

Mr Parker: The current system makes it difficult for both tenants and landlords to have their disputes settled. Often it can take months and cost thousands of dollars for a dispute to be resolved. Minister, how does the Tenant Protection Act propose to deal with landlord and tenant disputes?

Hon Mr Leach: I thank the member for York East for that very fine question. What are we doing to make sure that the system works well and to make sure that we don't run into circumstances where it takes eight or nine years of court time to resolve a very simple landlord and tenant concern? We're putting in a rent control tribunal that will deal with tenant and landlord disputes in a very fast, efficient and effective way. They'll be able to be settled within days or weeks or at the most several months, rather than seven or eight years.

Do you know that from the Liberal rent control legislation, we still have 10 cases in the courts from 1988? It has taken that long for the courts to try and figure out what that complex legislation was. I can assure you that the legislation we're putting in under the Tenant Protection Act will allow tenants and landlords to resolve their differences in a very expedient manner.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As your government reaches now its third year in office, I am reminded of a promise made by the Premier related to the environment. He was quoted three days before the election of June 5, 1995, three years ago, as saying that there would not be one cent cut out of the environment. He said, "We can find the $6 billion in cuts without touching the environment."

Minister, you've cut $135 million out of your budget, you've laid off over 700 staff, you've cut monitoring stations across this province, charges are down, prosecutions are down, environmental controls no longer exist in this province. Can you explain to me how you can sit there and defend the statement of your Premier, who said that you would not cut one cent out of the environment, when you have gutted your ministry and you've abandoned all environmental protection, at a cost of $135 million? Who's right: Your cuts or the comments of your Premier?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the member about some of the wonderful things that the Ministry of the Environment is doing. Last week, you may know, I announced some $120 million in grants to a huge number of municipalities across the province, some 43 different municipalities where we gave this money so they could improve their sewage and water treatment.

The member opposite mentioned air quality monitoring. Our air quality monitoring in the province of Ontario is better now than it was last year. It has markedly improved from five or six years ago, because we have improved the equipment, we have more modern equipment, we have equipment which measures many more parameters than the previous equipment. The odd

part is that this year the Ministry of the Environment's budget for operating expenses actually increased.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Briefly, I want to correct my earlier record. I believe I referred to the Superior-Gemstone board. It is, of course, the Superior-Greenstone board.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommends two sites, two boards and two administrations for Cornwall and area hospitals; and

"Whereas the HSRC recommends the closing of hospital lab services in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the HSRC recommends building on a site that has no room for growth beyond the year 2003 and will be unable to meet the community's future needs;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Health Services Restructuring Commission to consolidate all hospital services at the Hotel Dieu site, which offers 28 acres of property for future development, with one board and one administration."

This is signed by 11,200 residents of Cornwall, S-D-G, Prescott and Russell and St Regis.

FRAIS DE SCOLARITÉ

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : J'ai ici une pétition de la Fédération canadienne des étudiantes et étudiants. C'est une déclaration en faveur du gel immédiat des frais de scolarité, et elle se lit telle que :

«Attendu que les frais de scolarité ont augmenté de plus de 140 % au cours des dernières dix années ; et

«Attendu que depuis 1986, les augmentations annuelles du coût de la vie n'ont pas dépassé 2 % tandis que les augmentations annuelles des frais de scolarité se situent entre 7 % et 20 % ; et

«Attendu que les frais de scolarité élevés représentent un obstacle aux étudies postsecondaires, notamment chez les étudiants et étudiantes de milieu de faible revenu, et ceux qui ont des responsabilités parentales ou des besoins spéciaux ; et

«Attendu que les étudiants et étudiantes paient maintenant plus de 40 % des coûts de fonctionnement des universités et des collèges ; et

«Attendu que la qualité de l'éducation s'est détériorée, en

partie à cause de la dégradation des installations de classes ;

«Nous, les soussignés, faisons appel au gouvernement de l'Ontario pour la mise en oeuvre immédiate d'un gel des frais de scolarité.»

Je signe cette pétition.

ABORTION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition that I'd like to present today, and in accordance with standing order 38(

b) I'll just summarize the petition by saying that the 34 people from my riding who have signed this are asking that the Legislature cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions. I'll file that today.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas all revenues from violations can be easily directed to a designated fund to improve safety at high-collision intersections; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws, resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new Highway 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

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

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I affix my signature to it.

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : J'ai ici une pétition soussignée par environ un couple de mille citoyens de nos communautés de Timmins, Iroquois Falls et Matheson. Elle se lit telle que :

«Attendu que l'éducation de nos enfants est prioritaire ; et

«Attendu que nous trouvons que le système d'éducation publique, tel qu'il existe, répond aux besoins du plus grand nombre d'élèves possible, y inclus ceux qui ont des besoins particuliers ; et

«Attendu que les changements proposés à travers la Loi 160 élimineront les possibilités d'action locale pour répondre aux besoins spécifiques de nos élèves ; et

«Attendu que ces changements ont affecté la salle de classe de façon négative, diminuant les ressources disponibles aux enseignants et enseignantes ;

«Il est résolu qu'on appelle au ministre de retirer le projet de loi 160 et entend des discussion sérieuses avec la FEO et ses filiales afin de répondre aux inquiétudes de tous les partis.»

Avec plaisir je signe cette pétition.

ABORTION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition from some 250 Knights of Columbus. It's regarding abortions, some 45,000 being at a cost of $25 million in the year 1993. They recognize that pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and they petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions. I file that petition today.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): As you know, there's a mental health care crisis in Thunder Bay. We have many people writing us petitions, with great concern expressing that. This petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proper mental health care is essential to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas mental health care is severely underfunded in northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has called for the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital with no replacement services in its place; and

"Whereas appropriate community mental health treatment is so lacking in northwestern Ontario that those who need treatment, support and rehabilitation are incarcerated in district jails; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has not delivered on its commitment to set up the Northwestern Ontario Mental Health Agency over one year after it promised to do so; and

"Whereas there is a dramatic shortage of psychiatrists in northwestern Ontario, to the point where the doctors are severely overworked; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health promised a 12-bed adolescent treatment centre and has failed to deliver on that promise;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit those funds necessary to provide full and proper mental health care to those in need in northwestern Ontario and call on the Minister of Health to cancel the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital."

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have here a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has committed the government of Ontario to enacting an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during its current term of office; and

"Whereas the expiry of the government of Ontario's current term of office is approaching; and

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has further committed the government of Ontario to working with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop such legislation; and

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has unanimously passed a resolution urging the government of Ontario to keep its promise to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office and that the government of Ontario work with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop such legislation; and

"Whereas the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, of which the Bloorview MacMillan Centre is a supporting member, has provided to the government of Ontario the document A Blueprint for a Strong and Effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which contains many examples of barriers experienced by people, including children and young adults with disabilities; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario committed in its 1998 budget address to supporting people with disabilities through a variety of measures, including the creation of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, of Bloorview MacMillan Centre, a family-centred rehabilitation facility serving Ontario's children and youth with disabilities and special needs and their families, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately act on its commitment to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office, and in doing so include effective means to eliminate barriers experienced by children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, and also to involve the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, including children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, in developing such legislation."

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I'm pleased to join the tens of thousands of citizens of my community in signing this petition.

PAY EQUITY

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'd like to present a petition for pay equity, from the nursing staff, health care aides and registered practical nurses, dietary staff, laundry staff, housekeeping staff and activity staff.

"We, the staff at Central Care Corp Nursing Home, request payment of all proxy pay equity amounts owed to us."

I'll affix my signature to it.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition from the Canadian Pensioners Concerned, which has a number of whereases, not the least of which is:

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas there is a shortage of police officers; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to utilize red light cameras;

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

"That the government of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

In support of that, I add my signature.

ABORTION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here that reads:

"We, the undersigned, as active chiropractic patients, represent almost 10% of the Ontario population. We feel that we carry too much of the financial burden for chiropractic care. Any cutbacks to OHIP funding of chiropractic care are not acceptable. We feel there should be increased OHIP funding with respect to chiropractic care."

I affix my signature to this.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 80 people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas proper mental health care is essential to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas mental health care is severely underfunded in northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has called for the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital with no replacement services in its place; and

"Whereas after-hours psychiatric care is so lacking in northwestern Ontario that those who need help are incarcerated in district jails; and

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has not delivered on its commitment to set up the Northwestern Ontario Mental Health Agency over one year after it promised to do so; and

"Whereas there is a dramatic shortage of psychiatrists in northwestern Ontario, to the point where the doctors are severely overworked; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health promised a 12-bed adolescent treatment centre and has failed to deliver on that promise;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit those funds necessary to provide full and proper mental health care to those in need in northwestern Ontario and call on the Minister of Health to cancel the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital."

This is signed by a large number of my constituents who share these concerns, and I affix my signature in full agreement.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here yet another petition, signed by a number of people in our community, that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take up to an additional $1 billion out of the education system this year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will remove up to 10,000 teachers from the classroom across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will have unbridled regulatory power over public education; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate student learning conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to undermine shared decision-making among students, parents, educators, trustees and taxpayers;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160."

BEAR HUNTING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition from a number of my constituents in Durham East with respect to the spring bear hunt.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the spring bear hunt takes the lives of many bear, we petition the Ontario government to outlaw the use of dogs and baiting during the bear hunt season in Ontario."

I'm very pleased to support and sign this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order relating to Bill 108,

An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration, when Bill 108 is next called as a government order in committee of the whole House, 15 minutes be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House;

That, at the end of that time, the Chair of the committee shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House;

That any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession;

That, upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill be shall be ordered for third reading;

That the order for third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and 30 minutes shall be allocated to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That, in the case of any divisions relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: You will recall that my friend from St Catharines raised a point of order on this motion -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): No.

Mr Wildman: I'm sorry. I apologize.

The Speaker: That's okay.

Mr Sterling has moved government notice of motion number 16. Government House leader?

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm going to open with a few comments. I will be sharing my time with the Attorney General, the member for Northumberland, the member for Durham East and the Minister of Agriculture and francophone affairs.

This particular matter should not have come to a time allocation motion. Bill 108 has been in front of this Legislature for some time now. There was an amendment put forward by the third party which was defeated at the standing committee stage. When the bill returned to the Legislature and was put into the committee of the whole House, the third party introduced here again the same motion that they had introduced at the standing committee stage. We had several debates over a long period of time to deal with that particular motion. However, it was apparent after I believe two sessional day sittings that the third party was going to continue and talk this bill out.

This bill, and I'm sure the Attorney General will elaborate upon it, gives considerable revenues to various municipalities from fines related to the Provincial Offences Act.

Subsequent to Bill 108 being stalled in committee of the whole House, I asked the Attorney General to talk with various francophone groups that might have been concerned with regard to the implementation of Bill 108. He was successful in obtaining from them a compromise position which would put an amendment to Bill 108. He obtained significant support from various groups with regard to that.

However, the third party continued to hold the position that this was not enough, notwithstanding the fact that the community which the third party was holding out to represent was ad idem with the Attorney General, or was in sync with the Attorney General, with regard to the amendments which he put forward.

When members of this Legislature get up and talk about the government having to time-allocate this bill or that bill, it's not because we are not trying to accommodate amendments, we are not trying to listen to the opposition, we are not trying to find a compromise, because we found a compromise which pleased everybody but the members from the third party. In other words, it pleased the stakeholders, the people of Ontario who are concerned with this issue, but it just didn't satisfy the NDP members, particularly the NDP member for Cochrane South, I believe it is.

Unfortunately this Legislature is going to have to spend all this afternoon and we're going to have to spend some time in another sessional day to deal with this bill. We've already spent, I believe, about four or five days of debate in the Legislature on this bill, which is clearly non-controversial in terms of all the other provisions the bill contains. It went out to committee, we had public hearings in the committee, and the public had an opportunity to put forward. There were some amendments, I believe, in the standing committee when it went out of the Legislature.

We have a very intransigent third party with regard to this matter. They will say, I'm sure, in the future, "The Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris is time-allocating this bill and they're time-allocating that bill." I want the public to understand why we have to time-allocate: because we do not have a reasonable opposition in terms of dealing on these matters. When we try to accommodate them, they will not move from their position at all, and therefore we're in the position again of time-allocating a bill which all of the municipalities across this province want.

It's unfortunate that we have to go to this length, that we have to chew up the time of the Legislature on a matter where, as I say, everybody but the politicians agree. The groups that represent the francophone community have agreed with the amendment, and I'm sure the Attorney General will put that forward.

I expect that we will be forced to time-allocate other bills in the future if we can't gain any cooperation from the opposition when a dispute arises. I'm really disappointed that on this one we could not reach an accommodation, that we could not negotiate back and forth on what a suitable amendment would be, especially since we had such a great degree of support from the francophone community.

I'd like at this point to pass it over to the Attorney General, who is responsible for Bill 108.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the government House leader for those opening remarks.

The subject matter here today is Bill 108, which proposes amendments to the Provincial Offences Act. The amendments will enable the government to transfer to municipalities all the remaining administrative functions and some of the prosecutorial functions of the Provincial Offences Act.

There are four key benefits to this proposed legislation: It transfers matters that have local impact into the control and accountability of local authorities while ensuring that there are clear and consistent provincial standards for the administration of justice; it enables the province to focus on prosecuting serious criminal offences by allowing municipalities to prosecute minor ticket-type offences; it meets a commitment this government has made to eliminate waste and duplication by bringing administrative functions together under one level of government; and it provides municipalities with a new source of net revenue to improve local services.

I want to assure the members of the House that the preservation of the integrity of the justice system is fundamental to this transfer. The province will continue to be responsible for setting and monitoring standards for the administration of justice to ensure uniform, fair and equal justice across Ontario.

In developing this initiative, I have consulted extensively. In fact, I want to take this opportunity to thank the considerable number of individuals and groups who have assisted the ministry with this initiative.

Over the past two years, many municipalities have provided time for their representatives to consult with the ministry. For example, ministry staff and I have met with the new city of Toronto, the city of Brampton, the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, the town of Milton, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the city of St Thomas and the city of Thunder Bay. Since last December, the list of municipal representation in the consultation group has grown to include the city of Barrie, the county of Simcoe, the new city of Chatham-Kent, the city of North Bay, the district of Nipissing, the region of York, Halton Hills and the county of Renfrew.

Indeed, we have received valuable input from many municipalities, the judiciary, the bar, enforcement agencies, ministry staff and legal experts. These contributions have enabled us to engage in a constructive and productive dialogue on the proposed Provincial Offences Act transfer since it was first recommended by the Crombie Who Does What panel in August 1996. Their invaluable assistance, as well as the participation of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, has been instrumental in the design of the transfer.

I would particularly like to thank those who came to show their support for the bill at the standing committee on general government, in some cases from significant distances.

Many municipalities raised the issue of local control during committee hearings. For example, the town of Caledon, which is now part of the court service area of Dufferin, said that it supported the proposed Bill 108 because it would help the municipality achieve the administration of justice at the local level.

Offences committed under the Highway Traffic Act, and speeding infractions in particular, form the bulk of offences for which tickets are issued under

part I of the Provincial Offences Act. These types of violations have a considerable impact on local communities, so it simply makes sense that local governments should play a role in administering and prosecuting these offences. They also need the net fine revenue to help them improve local services.

All municipalities in Ontario have been sent background information about the Provincial Offences Act and the proposed transfer. The province is currently offering information sessions for interested municipalities which will outline the scope of the work proposed to be transferred. The province is also providing interested municipalities with financial information related to provincial offences in their areas. This information will help municipalities prepare for the proposed transfer.

The response has been very positive. Municipalities are eager for this information. They are interested in becoming partners in the proposed transfer. They are preparing for the proposed transfer. Preparation planning is key to ensuring that justice standards will be met.

Municipalities continue to express their enthusiastic support for the transfer. I have received many letters and phone calls urging me to work towards the quick passage of Bill 108.

The proposed transfer is voluntary. However, municipalities that want to participate will have to demonstrate that they are ready and able to meet all provincial justice standards. The proposed transfer agreement clearly sets out these standards, which include standards for prosecutions, for court operations and for French-language services.

Once selected, the municipality will sign a memorandum of understanding, which clearly sets out the respective roles of the Ministry of the Attorney General and the municipality.

As I indicated, one of the standards is the obligation to provide existing levels of service in French. It is clearly stated in the memorandum of understanding as a responsibility of the municipality. Services in the French language will be maintained at current levels provided by the province during and after the proposed transfer of Provincial Offences Act responsibilities to municipalities.

These existing levels of French-language service include the right to a bilingual trial before a French-speaking justice of the peace everywhere in the province. The proposed transfer agreement will require municipalities to provide a prosecutor who speaks French when someone asks for a bilingual trial anywhere in the province. In designated areas of the province, municipalities must continue to provide bilingual counter and telephone service for court users. These justice standards are contained in law and in the transfer agreement.

The province will be monitoring municipalities' performance and will ensure that they meet these justice standards. I will be establishing a review committee to assist in monitoring municipal compliance with provincial justice standards, including the provision of services in the French language. If a municipality isn't meeting the standards, the proposed approach allows us to quickly identify the problem and to correct it. Also, the review committee will have the power to recommend that the ministry impose real and effective sanctions when necessary.

I am pleased to say that the Association of Francophone Municipalities of Ontario, which represents 45 municipalities serving more than 85% of the province's francophone population, and the association of francophone jurists, representing French-speaking jurists in Ontario, have accepted my offer to put forward representatives to sit on this review committee if the bill passes.

I have worked closely with the francophone community to ensure that their concerns would be addressed. I have taken the necessary steps to ensure that French-language services will continue. I have consulted extensively with the francophone community, through discussions with the Association of Francophone Municipalities and with the francophone jurists' association. Indeed, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the francophone organizations, both AFMO and AJEFO, for their cooperation over the past few months. They have offered to assist the ministry in developing and implementing the tools municipalities would need to ensure that French-language service requirements are met.

These associations have also expressed their willingness to provide support to those municipalities with few resources to provide French services. However, because of AJEFO's concerns about a potential loss of French-language service to the community through the transfer, I met with their representatives to understand their concerns. At the same time, I met with representatives of the Association of Francophone Municipalities. We met on several occasions.

An agreement was made to propose an amendment to clarify the

section of the bill that was in question. I also accepted their suggested improvements to the proposed transfer agreement. These changes would have reinforced the obligation of municipalities to continue to provide the same level of French-language services as the Ministry of the Attorney General now does.

We had an agreement. That agreement was reached with two independent francophone associations that represent the francophone community, who are not tied to any particular political party. Both associations confirmed their support for this agreement by letter to me and to the opposition. Even though we were able to reach an agreement that met the concerns of the francophone community, the opposition has chosen to ignore this support and is now stalling this bill by criticizing the bill for their own political gain. Because of their criticism, we have not been able to move forward on this bill and satisfy the needs of municipalities that want this bill to proceed as soon as possible.

The only option left, then, is to go ahead with the bill so that we no longer deny municipalities and the citizens of Ontario the benefits of this proposed transfer, while at the same time doing our utmost to protect the right to French-language services. There is simply no reason to delay this bill any further. There has already been much debate on this issue and on this bill. There was second reading debate on February 12, 1997. Then we had ei