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

October 26, 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

L049A - Mon 26 Oct 1998 / Lun 26 Oct 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

TORONTO ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

BONNIE PATTERSON

TUITION FEES

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES

BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SPECIAL EDUCATION

ABORTION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CARDIAC CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

LAND USE PLANNING

PROPERTY TAXATION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

WATER QUALITY

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PALLIATIVE CARE

MUSKOKA DEVELOPMENT

ABORTION

PROPERTY TAXATION

DENTAL CARE

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

GERMAN HERITAGE

PROSTATE CANCER

SCHOOL PRAYER

DENTAL CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm speaking on behalf of Reta Duenisch Turner, the late Mr Ronald Latimer and the thousands of senior citizens across the province who are being mistreated, disrespected and underserviced by the Mike Harris government.

Last week, at a meeting appropriately titled Seniors Under Attack, the Alliance of Seniors to Protect Canada's Social Programs brought forth experts to discuss our health care and long-term-care programs in Ontario, but they also presented the tragic human cost that has resulted from this government's blatant neglect of the needs of our senior citizens.

In her presentation, Ms Duenisch Turner talked about her friend Mr Latimer, who was treated so badly by the health and long-term-care system that he refused to go back: incidents of waiting for hours to be attended to in ER; being admitted to the ER and having to undergo the same repeated tests and being shipped home alone so that he wouldn't take up one of their valuable beds; not being able to get drugs to make his treatment more bearable because it wasn't covered by the drug plan; being refused at two emergency wards and not being accepted at a hospital before a Visa card was presented; not having the adequate long-term-care services that would have made Mr Latimer's ordeal more civilized.

This government should be ashamed of its talk about how much it is doing for seniors. It's time to listen to our seniors and health care professionals, time to go out and see what's really happening. I'm sure that Mr Latimer would not have wanted to be used as an example of how poorly he was cared for in our system. He should have been treated like a person, with dignity, not considered to be a body taking up a valuable bed in the ER. Mr Latimer was not a statistic but a human. The government seems to have forgotten this fact.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I attended a very disturbing news conference this morning held by the Metro Parent Network. We've been hearing rumours for some time about the impact of the government's plan to close schools across the province.

Today some of the parents came forward on the steps of Queen's Park to tell us that up to 100 schools across Toronto will be closing because of this government. Communities are bracing themselves once again to fight the really dumb policy brought forward by this government. They're bracing now to keep their community schools open.

I can tell you, in Riverdale already there are three small Catholic schools slated to be closed. Pretty soon, later this week, we will be finding out which schools are on the list across Toronto.

In measuring the schools for students, the government took into account hallways, gyms, lunchrooms. It doesn't make any sense. Classes cannot be held in those parts of the school.

The parents and the students of this city, and indeed all of the province, will be calling on the government not just for a rural solution to this problem; we want a solution across the province, including Toronto, to keep our schools open in our neighbourhoods. They are part of our community. We will fight to make sure that happens.

TORONTO ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize the tremendous contribution of the many volunteers in private sector involvement with the Toronto Association for Community Living.

Last week I had the privilege of attending a reception in the Lieutenant Governor's suite in celebration of their 50th anniversary.

TACL provides a wide range of support services, both residential and non-residential, for approximately 4,000 developmentally handicapped children and adults.

This government recognizes the important role that volunteers play in helping to develop strong and vibrant communities. It knows the volunteer sector contributes significantly to the economic and social well-being of the province.

Organizations such as the TACL are dependent on their volunteers. Cay Sheddan has dedicated numerous hours to the association, especially to the Harold B. Lawson Centre in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Likewise, Mr Glen McConnell, vice-president and general manager of Pattison Outdoor Advertising, has personally committed himself to this worthy cause since 1996 when he co-chaired several fundraising events. He exemplifies the tremendous contribution the private corporate sector makes to the success of organizations such as TACL.

Mr Speaker, I would ask that you join me in recognizing the following volunteers who are living proof that the volunteer spirit is alive and well in Ontario: Agnes Samler -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): After several weeks of deliberations behind closed doors, the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission or, as many appropriately call it, the hospital destruction commission, will issue its pronouncement on the future of hospitals in the Niagara region tomorrow.

During the last provincial election campaign in 1995, Conservative leader Mike Harris said, "Certainly, I can guarantee you, it is not my plan to close hospitals." Since he became Premier, Mr Harris has closed 40 public and private hospitals or forced them to merge.

When Dr David Foot, author of the book Boom, Bust and Echo, was asked by a Brock University student what advice he would give to Mike Harris considering the demographic makeup of Niagara, he stated, "Don't close hospitals."

To my question in the Legislature last Wednesday concerning the underfunding of Niagara hospitals, Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer refused to give any assurances about funding or the future of hospitals in Niagara and chose to hide behind the commission established with unprecedented dictatorial powers by Mike Harris in the infamous Bill 26.

The Niagara region has, on a per capita basis, the oldest population in Ontario and will need both acute and chronic care facilities. Thousands of our residents signed petitions and attended public meetings to save our hospitals. Their view should be respected because their advice was good. If the commission sugar-coats its report, we will not say, "Thank you for amputating us at the knee; you could have amputated us at the foot."

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm urging people across this province to pay some very special attention to what happens in this Legislature this coming Thursday morning, October 29, during private members' business.

I say this because there is going to be a resolution presented to this Legislature, which members are going to be called to vote on, that's going to call for this government to keep its promise to introduce and pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act - not mere lip service, not some insane proposition of voluntary compliance. Think about it. Should we repeal the Highway Traffic Act and rely on mere voluntary compliance? Why not have voluntary compliance with manslaughter laws?

We need an Ontarians with Disabilities Act that is tough, that has teeth and that indeed addresses the issue of access to all facets of Ontario life for persons with disabilities; not just access to buildings but access to the economic activity of this province.

This government repealed employment equity and now this government drags its feet on the issue of real legislation to give those persons with disabilities some of the fundamental rights that the balance of Ontarians have enjoyed for a significant period of time.

New Democrats are going to be supporting this resolution and I'm confident members of the official opposition will. The real test is where Tory backbenchers stand. That's what I want people -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

BONNIE PATTERSON

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in the Legislature to offer my congratulations to Professor Bonnie M. Patterson who was installed as Trent University's sixth president and vice-chancellor on October 2 of this year. Ms Patterson is the first woman president and vice-chancellor of Trent and the second woman to be named as the head of a Canadian university.

President Patterson has a long list of credits which include dean of the faculty of business for Ryerson Polytechnic University; professor of the school of administration and information management, Ryerson; chair of the school of administration and information management; and lecturer at the University of Western Ontario. President Patterson is an experienced and accomplished administrator as well as past president of the Council of Ontario Universities.

At the installation, a great deal of praise was extended to President Patterson on her past accomplishments. Included were remarks that she is held in high esteem in the university community and beyond. She was also noted as someone who has been a forceful and articulate advocate of a liberal arts education.

President Patterson joins an esteemed team of women from Trent that includes Ambassador Mary May Simon, Canada's first Inuit ambassador for circumpolar affairs, who is the university's chancellor.

I congratulate not only Bonnie Patterson but Trent University in choosing a dynamic personality for the presidency of that university.

TUITION FEES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today on behalf of the students of our post-secondary programs to tell members about the Premier's latest mean-spirited comments around the issue of student debt.

As members know, Mike Harris was in St Catharines last week, and when pressed on the issue of student debt, his only response was this outrageous statement: "I was a little bit disappointed with the amount of pessimism that seems to be there with the cost of going to college or university." He continued and said he "thinks that the debt might put off the BMW for one more year, but I don't think that ought to be a barrier to anybody."

This comment is shocking. This from the Premier who promised to make changes to make OSAP work for students. Debt loads continue to grow and grow, with the average student debt on graduation being $25,000, and these aren't car loans, Premier, they're debts to banks.

Is OSAP more accessible on the Premier's watch? Well, no. Now it's harder for students to qualify: They have to live away from home longer, their parents have to contribute more and there is still no loans program for part-time students.

I hope these government members are proud of their Premier's comments on this issue and I know that students in Ontario now understand more clearly why this government won't take any real action on debt. It's because their Premier doesn't believe it's a real problem.

I know I'm proud to stand with my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and his commitment to freeze tuition. I'm sorry the Premier is unwilling to make the same commitment to our young people.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Another group of workers in Ontario, who have been under constant attack from the Harris government, have said today, "Enough is enough."

I'm talking about hospital workers. I'm talking about hospital laundry workers, hospital dietary workers, hospital nursing aides, ambulance drivers, hospital cleaners - people, 50,000 or so of them across this province, 90% of them women, who work to keep our hospitals running and keep them clean and safe and make sure that our patients are getting their food on time and that the supplies and linens are all there and are clean.

These people have said to the Harris government, "You can't have it both ways." You've taken $800 million out of the hospital system. Talks have broken down at the central bargaining table, with 180 hospitals at it, because the OHA wants to take away job security language because that's the only way they can meet the government's fiscal priorities, the cuts the government has imposed on the hospitals.

At the same time, when they say, "OK, we have a dispute, let's go to arbitration," you've changed the arbitration process. You've taken away the fair, independent arbitrators and replaced them with a bunch of appointed judges, retired judges who know nothing about labour relations, who know nothing about the jurisprudence in the hospital sector, who are giving awards which are absolutely incredible, taking away things like supplemental health, calling it a luxury and a perk. No wonder these people have said, "Enough is enough."

We may be facing an illegal strike in this province because of the Harris government and your cuts to hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Reports by committees? I forgot, one more statement. I apologize to the member for Durham East.

BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Thank you, Mr Speaker - probably the most important member's statement of the day, arguably.

My riding of Durham East is made up of many small communities like Blackstock, Hampton, Orono and Kendal, to name but four, to follow the member for Renfrew North's opening lines. However, we had four baseball teams from Kendal that recently competed in the provincial championships. Kendal is a very small community in my riding of Durham East. This is a major achievement, for a very small community to win a provincial E-level championship not just in peewee, but in the midget level as well.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the important contribution of volunteers like the baseball association coaches for the Kendal Royals, led by Ron Davis and assisted by Bob Palmer, Harvey Hamilton and Rob Davis.

They keep reports on this. It's clear that they had very sterling pitchers in Kyle Searle and Bryan Bickell. There was an excellent two-run homer by a player named Jesse Gimblett.

It's clear that the contributions of the community volunteers in small communities in Ontario really can achieve great things. Imagine that, the Ontario champions being a team from a small community like Kendal, Ontario. I think the House should recognize this accomplishment and join me in applauding that team today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 72,

An Act to govern intercountry adoptions and to implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption in order to further the best interests of children / Projet de loi 72, Loi visant à régir les adoptions internationales et à mettre en oeuvre la Convention sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d'adoption internationale afin de favoriser l'intérêt véritable des enfants.

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): This legislation does two key things: It implements the Hague Convention, which is an international adoption agreement to protect families and children signed by 66 countries, including Canada; secondly, because 80% of Ontario adoptions come from countries which have not signed this convention, this bill implements a licensing system for those involved in helping families to adopt from overseas.

I'd like to thank ministry staff, members of the NDP caucus for their input, and also the member for Lawrence.

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 to 9:30 pm on October 26, 27, 28 and 29, 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. I declare the motion carried.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber a special visitor seated at the table right in front of me: Mrs JoAnn McKerlie-Korol, who is the Clerk Assistant and Journals Clerk at the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. Welcome.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, everybody here knows about the tragic shooting of the doctor in the United States who was performing safe, legal abortions. Doctors here in Ontario are concerned. I'm asking for unanimous consent for a statement from the minister responsible for women's issues.

The Speaker: Agreed? No. Time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. On Thursday the Toronto Board of Education is expected to announce their decisions about what schools are likely to have to close if they're going to live with your funding formula. Toronto parents were here this morning to try and tell you how concerned they are about what's going to happen to their children. They want to know where their children will go. They want to know how far they're going to have to be bused.

The parents who were here today hold you and your government directly responsible for forcing these schools to close. They know that you've cut $57 million out of the maintenance budget of the Toronto Board of Education. They know then that there's not enough money to keep these schools open. They know that you have refused as recently as last week to extend the deadline, forcing school boards to make decisions about what schools will have to close.

Minister, will you put back the dollars that you've cut out of board budgets, the over $150 million that you've taken out of budgets to heat, light and clean those so-called extra spaces, so that boards aren't forced to close these schools?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will say that the Toronto Board of Education will have more revenues this year than last year, and the reckoning of the Ministry of Education is that the total revenues of the Toronto Board of Education will exceed $2 billion, fairly close to $2.2 billion, this fiscal year as opposed to about $2.1 billion in the previous fiscal year.

Given those extra revenues coming in to the Toronto Board of Education, it's a good question that the parents should be asking -and I agree with parental involvement - they should be asking the Toronto Board of Education to organize their affairs accordingly so their students receive the best possible education in the best possible accommodation. I encourage parents at the local level to deal with the board and to assist the board in making the best decisions, given the fact that the province is allowing more money to the Toronto board in 1998-99.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, stop playing games with those kinds of numbers. You know full well that there are 44,000 more students in the Ontario school system this fall and that you are supposedly providing education for those students with no new dollars - 44,000 more students; no new dollars - and that's why you're cutting money out of the maintenance budget, about $150 million across the province cut out of the money to heat, light and clean what you have decided are extra spaces.

It's not just Toronto; you know that. In Avon Maitland they'll be meeting tomorrow night to decide what schools will have to close, because you've taken about $2.5 million out of their maintenance budget. Hamilton-Wentworth school board met last Thursday and they decided that they could not follow your rules. They could not close the kinds of schools that you expected them to close because of your funding cuts. They said that neither your rules nor your funding worked for their students. Now they have to find millions of dollars someplace else to keep their schools open, and according to your formula, they can't deal with students who haven't been at a new school in Ancaster.

The Hamilton-Wentworth board has said that school closures you're forcing are wrong for students and they won't do it. What do you say to Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon David Johnson: I would say to Hamilton-Wentworth exactly what I have said in this House and I say to the other boards, that this is a board decision. If Hamilton-Wentworth doesn't feel that they should close any school, that's fine by me. This is a decision that's totally up to each individual board.

The member noted the Toronto situation. In the case of Toronto, according to the chair of the Toronto board, the average maintenance cost per square foot I think was roughly $6.50 last year, which is way above and beyond the norm across the province. The norm across Ontario is $5.20, and indeed about half of the boards are operating more efficiently than that.

I guess I would say again to the boards that are operating efficiently, "Right on, we should encourage you," and I would say to the boards such as here in Toronto, where they're operating much higher than the average rate, "If other boards can operate more effectively and efficiently, why can't you here in Toronto, and other boards, operate effectively and efficiently?"

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Yesterday I hosted a meeting in St Thomas. Parents from southwestern Ontario came to express their deep concern about your government's agenda for publicly funded education. Don't tell me that your funding formula helps small and rural schools. Nobody in rural Ontario believes you. Bob Shepherd from Romney Central School, was there. His picture is in the Toronto Star today. He is a symbol because Romney is the first school closed. Your government's one-size-fits-all formula closed his school. Your formula does not recognize the unique needs of his community. I have tried to tell you that.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been trying to tell you that. On Saturday, almost 1,000 parents marched in Stratford to protest rural school closings.

When are you going to fix your funding formula to recognize the importance of rural and community schools in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: I will say that the funding formula makes specific provision for specific cases such as remote and rural schools. There's about $90 million in the formula which will be distributed to about a third of the boards across Ontario to assist them because they are located at great distances from some of the major urban areas. There's also about $40 million for small schools, specifically elementary schools with an average class size of less than 20, for example, and that money will assist schools in that direction.

When the member talks about the funding formula, I note that the director of education for the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario has said, "This formula will go a long way to helping us build pupil places." The director of York Region District School Board has indicated, "It is wonderful news to us."

We are simply attempting to be fair and equitable to all the boards across Ontario, to give them the money to work with their communities to provide -

The Speaker: New question.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. On September 28, I asked you why the funding to support students with high levels of need had not yet been provided to school boards, some three weeks into the school year. I expressed to you the concern of parents that their children were at home because the support was not there. You told me the money was in place, but as of Friday, the money was still not there and parents are continuing to call.

Mr Proulx of Toronto called me this morning about his visually impaired son, Samuel. Samuel needs specialized computer support to continue with his grade 6 program. The computer was tentatively placed on order last April but it can't be actually ordered because the money for it hasn't come. Minister, can you tell Mr Proulx why there is still no support in place for his son?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will say that the monies which have been set aside for special education, over $1 billion - roughly $1.1 billion, as a matter of fact - are flowing to the particular boards. The amount of money we announced back in March of this year, some $1.052 billion, is flowing to the school boards as we speak. The Lakehead District School Board, for example, has been the beneficiary of about half a million dollars. These monies are flowing.

In terms of the fine-tuning of the special education grants, the very small amount in addition to the $1.052 billion is being worked with the local school boards, but the vast majority of the money is out and flowing to the school boards as we speak.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we were told on Friday that the money to support the individual needs of high-needs children has not reached the school boards. That's why we're getting calls from parents. You told me a month ago that the money for these children would be there; it is still not there.

I'll give you another example, a parent who called us last week, Mr Harry Pott. His son is one of the young people who need that kind of full-time support if he's even to stay in school. He goes to Thousand Islands Secondary School in Brockville, and at the beginning of September he was told that he could only attend school until 2 o'clock in the afternoon because that's all the support that could be provided until the new funding arrived. There is still no funding for Mr Pott's son to go to school full days. His father wants to know what's happening. Don't talk to Mr Pott about fine-tuning; tell him why the money for his son is not in place.

Hon David Johnson: That's a question that should be addressed by the board, because this government has assured each and every board that not only is the flow of money there today, but some $1.052 billion is flowing in monthly allotments to the various boards. That includes the intensive support amount as well as the basic grant amount. Those monies are flowing to each and every one of the boards. The boards have been guaranteed enough money to ensure that each and every special education student has the same support they've had in the past. We've made that pledge, monies are flowing and those questions should be placed to the board as to why the students are not getting the proper support.

Mrs McLeod: The boards say that the money has been promised, that they've been told it's coming but it's not there. Your government has a remarkable record of saying something is going to happen and then not doing anything for months or years. We've seen emergency room funding, we've seen chronic care beds not up, we've seen cancer care funding not flowing. In your own ministry we had scholarships that were announced and never did get put in place; they just simply disappeared. This time there are children, young people out there with very special needs and you can't simply ignore them. You can't make their needs fit your formula before you provide the support.

Minister, I suspect your promise is costing you a lot more than you expected. I suspect that's probably why you are meeting this week to start to re-evaluate your promise before the money has actually flowed. But all that parents know is that their children are at risk. You said the money was there. As of last Friday, almost two months into the school year, it simply was not. The parents want to know why the money's not there. Minister, tell them what's going on.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry to disappoint the member opposite, but this government for the first time ever in the history of any government has defined and protected the special education monies going to the various school boards, and this government has insisted that over $1 billion in special education be spent on special education. Those monies we promised back in March are flowing to the school boards as we speak. That includes the basic amount for school boards and that includes the intensive support amount.

What is happening now is the last fine-tuning amounts, the very small per cent. We're working with the boards on that very fine-tuning. But those monies are flowing to the boards as we speak and the boards should be giving the students the kind of services they received in the past. If they aren't, then they're not doing their job.

ABORTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, I want to ask this of the acting Premier. Over the weekend we witnessed the tragic shooting and death of a doctor who had been providing safe, legal abortions to his patients. This is the fifth sniper shooting of a doctor since 1994. Two years ago a physician in Ancaster was shot by a sniper.

We've heard from the President of the United States. He has condemned this. The US Attorney General has condemned it. The OPP has condemned it. The RCMP has condemned it. The FBI has condemned it. Yet your Premier and your government are completely silent. Minister, the Premier is out there attacking health care workers, attacking teachers, attacking union members, attacking poor women who are pregnant. Why has the Premier and your government been completely silent on this tragic issue?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I refer this matter to the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): First of all, let me stress that our government certainly does not approve and does condemn what happened. We believe that these situations are very tragic and we take them very seriously. The safety of all our professionals in the medical field is of tremendous concern to each and every one of us, and I can assure you that if the Ministry of Health is asked to assist in any way in this investigation, we would certainly be prepared to do so.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this was a sniper shooting, a murder of a physician. As I told you, a physician here in Ontario was shot two years ago. Your government is completely silent on this issue; in fact, worse than that. We asked for unanimous consent today, and I believe your minister responsible for women's issues was one of the members who said no - no to standing up and saying on the public record: "This is wrong. This cannot be accepted."

In 1992, when the Morgentaler Clinic was bombed, the Minister of Health at that time, Frances Lankin, who sits here beside me, was on her feet the next day to condemn the bombing and to say that the clinic would be rebuilt and those medical services would be provided. We hear nothing from you or your Premier, absolutely nothing, and nothing from the minister responsible for women's issues. This is the time for leadership. This is the time to condemn this cowardly act. Minister, will you do that now, and will your Premier do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I indicated in my first sentence, these types of situations are extremely tragic and we certainly take them very seriously, but it's also important to make the public aware of the difference. In 1992, that was a situation that occurred in our own province, the province of Ontario, and it was necessary, obviously, for Ontario to show leadership. The situation we're talking about today is one that occurred outside of our boundaries. But, as I said to you, our government takes this very seriously.

This is an investigation that is presently taking place. The police are conducting this investigation, and as I said in my first response, our government and the Ministry of Health are prepared to help the police in any way we can in this situation, and we will do so.

Mr Hampton: This is a campaign, and I believe even the police are saying this, to intimidate physicians, to intimidate them not to provide a medical procedure which is covered by our laws and covered by our system of health insurance. Your government has been completely silent. Your Premier, who has something to say about almost everything, has been completely silent.

Worse than that, your government has actually been shutting down the provision of abortion services yourselves. You've cut $800 million from hospital budgets. When you amalgamated hospitals, when you forced the amalgamation of Wellesley with St Michael's, up to 1,500 procedures a year were cancelled. Now you've placed a billing cap on physicians who perform abortions, a strong disincentive for any doctor in this province to perform this medical procedure.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, your government is actively participating in a campaign to shut down access to safe, legal abortions. When will you -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me again stress the fact that this is a very tragic situation. It is a situation whereby the OPP in this province is co-operating with the FBI in the United States in order that the individual or the individuals responsible can be located.

Let me also say to you that this government has not taken any action to decrease the services. In fact, when the hospitals went through the period of the amalgamation, the services were transferred and discussions were held with other physicians in order that those procedures could be provided for elsewhere. As you know, if you take a look at hospitals in this province, not every hospital provides every service.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: In some hospitals you can get cardiac services and in other hospitals you can't. In some hospitals there's dialysis and in others there isn't.

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

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also to the Minister of Health. I say to the minister, your silence on this issue and your government's silence on this issue speaks volumes, and the effect of your decision is to shut women in this province off from safe, legal abortion procedures.

I want to ask you now about mental health funding. You were on your feet on June 3 of this year to announce $60 million for mental health services. Today, Dr Tyrone Turner, who practises at St Joseph's Hospital, indicated that less that $20 million of that money has been received. It's now five months later. We're seeing the same pattern of empty, phony, cynical health care announcements by you and your government. When are the hospitals and the clinics going to see the further $40 million that you were so proud to announce but have done so little to deliver?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I can certainly indicate to you that we were very proud to be able to conduct an extensive review of mental health services in the province of Ontario. I was very pleased that my parliamentary assistant was able to conduct that investigation and review, because unfortunately the strategy that had been developed by your government was no longer responding to the needs of people in this province who had mental health needs. I'm very pleased to say that we are working with the communities and we want to make sure that we have the providers, that we have the locations in place.

The money has been flowing to those communities and we're now pleased that we see court diversion programs, that we see the teams in communities that can give the 24-hour support.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are providing the community services that are necessary before we take any further steps regarding the psychiatric hospitals. I might say -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you're asking me to believe you over Dr Tyrone Turner. Let me tell you, I believe Dr Tyrone Turner, and the people of Ontario will believe Dr Turner long before they believe you. You now have a track record of a series of empty, phony, cynical announcements about health care, announcements that aren't fulfilled.

The reality is that you keep saying you're waiting to hear from your advisory committee on this issue. That's the gist of your answer today. You cancelled the last meeting of your advisory committee back in August and you've yet to

schedule another meeting. Perhaps you really don't need their advice. If your true purpose here is simply to make these cynical announcements and then to delay, delay, delay, you really don't need their advice. But the problem is that the situation out there is becoming more urgent. When are you going to forward this money to the people in this province who desperately need mental health services?

Hon Mrs Witmer: In comparison to the steps that were taken by your government, we have made tremendous strides. As you know, not only did you close psychiatric hospitals and not provide the community support, we actually put the moratorium on the closure of the psychiatric beds until such time that the community services were in place.

I'm pleased to say that we are meeting with our provincial stakeholder group because we believe it's important that the individuals - the providers and the people who access the services - make sure they approve of the provincial strategic plan. In fact, our mental health an-nouncement was lauded by Dr Garfinkel and the London Free Press indicates, "Health Minister Witmer deserves credit for bringing order to the tumultuous changeover in mental health services in Ontario."

Mr Hampton: Minister, you try very hard to miss the point. Yes, you're wonderful at making announcements. We all agree on that. I've never seen a minister who can make so many announcements. The trouble is, the track record shows they're always empty, phony announcements. Five months later, six months later, people are being denied the health services they need. Physicians, hospitals, clinics are having to work harder and harder, trying to hold Band-Aids together. That's the situation you're creating.

Minister, even your parliamentary assistant Mr Newman said that the announcement you made last spring wasn't enough, that you had to come forward with income and housing supports. Here's the track record since last June: You make the announcement, you cancel the meeting with the advisory committee, the money doesn't flow and we see no indication of income and housing supports. Is this another problem at Management Board? Does your colleague sitting beside you not approve of this funding of the health care system? What's the problem over there?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I don't believe that the leader of the third party understands that during the five years the NDP were in office, not only did they not provide any additional funding but they also released people from psychiatric hospitals without community support. We have now, in co-operation with the stakeholders in Ontario, recognized that mental health services, including jobs, housing and community support, are available. We have flowed $20 million; we have flowed $40 million.

Yes, my parliamentary assistant recommended that more money be made available, and I am pleased to tell the leader of the third party that we will soon be in a position where we will be able to completely flow even more money than the millions we've already flowed because, unlike you, we're going to make sure we have a strategy that meets the needs of people, and it will.

CARDIAC CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask you, on behalf of the greater Toronto area cardiologists, why you haven't responded to the information they've provided you. As you know already, this information is not just about surgeries but the tests people with heart problems need in order to get to surgery. You know that GTA cardiologists, the doctors who look after people with heart problems, have released statistics to say that 76 people have died in the GTA, not waiting for surgery but waiting for these tests.

You've known about this since September last year; it has continued. They've just released statistics about the 76 people either dying or having severe heart attacks, and the sad thing about this is that these people are dying at a higher rate than the people on the waiting list for surgery and yet they're further back in line. You've known about this for a time. What I'm here to ask you today is, what are you doing about it?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to say that our government built upon the fine work that was done by the NDP in setting up the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. We have since 1995 reinvested more than $65 million into cardiac services, and I am very pleased to say that we have been able to provide for 16,000 more lifesaving procedures this year, for a total 60,000 this year alone, as a result of our $65-million investment.

Mr Kennedy: The minister knows that community cardiologists have been told that things were going to happen last year. Nothing has happened. They are still finding that people can't get in to see the people running the labs. They aren't getting the tests taken. More people are dying waiting for the tests than are waiting for surgery. You're not taking care of the problem. You haven't changed a thing about the access that people have.

They've asked for some very reasonable things. They want to make sure people have access to cardiologists, they want you to change how people are referred to the system and they want you to put more funds in because you said you would. In September last year, the Cardiac Care Network said you should put more money in, in this case, because angiograms are needed to keep people alive.

Seventy-six people have died or had a heart attack while waiting or waiting far back on the list. Will you at least today acknowledge that there is a problem and that there is something you're going to do about it?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We acknowledge that there is a need to continue to reinvest in priority services such as cardiac care in order that the 16,000 individuals who received life-saving procedures this year can be increased even more.

Let me tell you what we have already done. We have listened to the Cardiac Care Network, and in December 1995 we provided $8 million for 1,435 cardiac surgeries; $2 million in September 1996 for one-time funding for over 750 coronary stent cases; $35 million for 10,000 patients on March 11, 1997. On March 10, 1998, we invested, in response to the request of the Cardiac Care Network, $10.2 million to support cardiac infrastructure needs -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and to expand cardiac management program services. This money has been provided to communities across this province, and let me -

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. Will the minister confirm that school boards serving more than 27% of Ontario's school children must cut the operating costs of their schools by more than $1 a square foot because of your new funding formula?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will confirm that the operations and maintenance monies provided to the school boards across Ontario are about 1.5% in total less than in 1997. Some boards will receive more; some boards will receive less. The median provided, at $5.20 per square foot, obviously is more than about half the boards have already been spending and less than about what the other half are spending. We've been attempting to encourage boards to use best practices and to be most effective and efficient, as many boards already are.

Mr Wildman: I guess that's a yes.

The minister knows that there have been divisive school closing discussions going on across the province as a result of the new funding formula for boards, and the minister claims that the decisions are solely the responsibility of the boards.

We have an independent study now that uses the ministry's own submissions in court which prove what we've been saying all along: that the government has taken about $1 billion out of our schools. The minister talks about the median. The new funding formula uses a median expenditure by boards as a benchmark. The medians are the Brant county Catholic board and the Kent county Catholic board, those old boards. The benchmark for operating costs is based on the spending of these two boards, which each had an enrolment representing less than 1% of Ontario's students.

Will the minister come clean and admit that the new funding formula, which is dependent on these median boards -

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

Hon David Johnson: I certainly wouldn't admit that, because it wouldn't be truthful. What I would say is that the amount of funding per student in the classroom will go up over the next three years because, and I'm proud to say this, this government is focusing the spending into the classroom. The people of Ontario feel there is a great deal of money being spent on education in the province. Indeed there has been. Last year there was about $14.5 billion spent on education.

This year there will be about $15 billion spent on education, which is more monies being spent on education than ever before, but more of it will be in the classroom and there will be more money spent per student in the classroom than before.

Yes, I'm again proud to say that outside of the classroom in terms of the bureaucracy, in terms of the administration, there will be less money spent, and we are demanding efficiencies outside of the classroom. But in the classroom, where it counts, there will be more money spent and more money spent per student.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Well over a year ago, your ministry embarked on one of the most ambitious and extensive consultations in the history of this province on the Lands for Life program. The three round tables travelled throughout the province, seeking the input of Ontarians from all walks of life on the future shape of crown land use planning. Minister, what is the current status of the Lands for Life program?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member for Peterborough for the question on an issue that I'm sure is important to many people in Ontario. I am very proud of the Lands for Life process for a variety of reasons, first and foremost because this represents a completely new focus on local input into the very important land use planning here in Ontario. It's heartwarming that more than 15,000 people have participated with the round tables in these deliberations over the past few months.

The members of the round tables have worked very hard to consolidate some very passionate information they have received from the public over those months, consolidating that into a plan that will be good for the future of Ontario. I want to thank the members of the round tables for their hard work, particularly Bettyanne Thib-Jelly, who was the chair of Boreal East, Bob Michels, who was the chair of Boreal West, and Bob Gray, who was the chair of the Great Lakes-St Lawrence round table, for all of their hard work on behalf of future generations of Ontarians.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I just want to make sure I can hear you. Member for Peterborough.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Speaker. I'm glad they wanted to hear me, because when we get heckling like that, I automatically know we're on the right track.

Minister, you have identified what I believe is one of the hallmarks of the Lands for Life process, which is a shift from ministry-driven to citizen-driven land use planning. What opportunities will exist for future public involvement in the Lands for Life process?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you know, I haven't had much experience in standing in this House and speaking over heckling, so this will be a new experience for me.

I can tell the member for Peterborough that over the last couple of months, the round table chair has been working very hard to consolidate the three reports into one report, and I hope to receive that report very soon. As soon as I receive that report, we'll make it publicly available so that we can have more comment and more advice from the public on the work of the round tables, and that input and those comments will help us form the framework of the government's response to the land use planning process that has involved so much public input.

Our goals in this are shared by people across the province: completing the parks and protected areas in Ontario, certainty for those whose livelihood depends on natural resources, and improving the opportunities for tourism and for hunting and fishing in Ontario. Those are laudable goals and goals that I believe are shared by many people right across the province.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): In the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Last week, and very ironically during Small Business Week in this province, we saw the last

chapter of the sorry property tax saga in this province take one further step when the Minister of Finance introduced his eighth bill. It's interesting that it didn't deal at all with any of the residential property taxpayers who also in many situations are expected to pay huge tax increases this year.

You are now forcing municipalities out there to, in effect, send another tax bill. Why are you attacking municipalities and why are you attacking the municipal taxpayers to this extent? It has now been eight or nine months that most municipalities haven't even been able to set their budget, haven't been able to send out the proper tax bills. When they finally did, you got it wrong once again. Why are you creating this chaos in the province, and why are you attacking small business in this province on a continual basis?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I am just amazed at the comment from the member opposite when he says, "Why is this government attacking small business?" This government proposes to bring in legislation that will protect small businesses from unfair tax increases.

I also think it's very appropriate that this legislation is being proposed as we start Small Business Week.

We intend to cap tax increases for any business in the commercial-industrial field at 10% in 1998, 5% in 1999 and another 5% in 2000. We think that's fair. We know it took at least 50 years to get into the mess that we're in with the assessment system in Ontario. We also know that you're not going to correct all of the errors of the past overnight. You're going to have to phase in increases and decreases. We want to make sure that those increases are phased in in a fair and equitable manner. But the municipalities were not prepared to do that; this government is.

Mr Gerretsen: Every small business owner in this province knows that your government is totally incompetent when it comes to any kind of tax reform. You know as well as I do that

whereas some property owners and small business owners may have their tax increases limited in the upper scale, the municipalities now have to go back to those people who are getting decreases and get more money from them, which is totally unconscionable. As some people have said, it looks as if the provincial tax policy here is set by Vanna White and her Wheel of Fortune.

Why don't you listen to the experts on this? You know as well as I do that an expert panel made up of CAOs in this province, made up of AMO -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, you know that an expert panel on taxation, made up of AMO members, made up of clerks and treasurers of this province, made up of the financial managers and officers of this province, has been waiting out there, has been offering its help to you, and you haven't even acknowledged receipt of their very reasonable solutions as to how the province ought to be dealing with this problem. Why aren't you listening to them? Why are you attacking small business? Why are you attacking municipalities? Why are you attacking the taxpayers of this province? You have continually done it, and you continue to do it.

Hon Mr Leach: I say to the member opposite, let's hear what the municipalities and the business community are saying. Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business applauds the provincial move. Ontario Chamber of Commerce president Douglas Robson also supported the government move, saying that overhauling the system is decades old and it takes time to get it right.

The municipal reaction: Markham Mayor Don Cousens, whom your leader mentioned last week, says he's satisfied with the new deal. Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said she was pleased that the legislation will shift the burden to other businesses.

This whole exercise is to make sure that we bring fairness and equity back into a broken system. It's going to take some time to do that. We recognize that. It's something you didn't recognize when you were in government and something you didn't recognize when you were in government. This government has had the intestinal fortitude to deal with a very, very difficult question. We're working with the municipalities, we're working with small business, and everyone will be satisfied with the outcome.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Education. Your new funding formula is causing potentially the closing of some 130 Catholic and public schools here in Toronto. As you know, the Catholic school board has already identified 29 schools that are now under review. A number of them are in my own west-end area of town, schools like St Rita, St Josaphat, R.W. Scott, schools that are offering good services and are functioning well as community schools. The public school board is going to be releasing the list later this week.

As I look at the difference in the funding formula, for example, for the public school system here in Toronto, it's $360 million less when the plan is fully implemented, when your funding formula is fully implemented. That translates into about 100 fewer schools that the school board is going to have to go through and review and potentially close.

My question to you is simply this: Before this chaos continues in our schools, will you review your funding formula and take out from the calculation the space that you are now not using and make sure that you remove from the danger list some 130 schools here in the city of Toronto?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): As I've said before, this is an annual process that school boards go through. When the NDP was in power there were schools closed each and every year across Ontario; well over 100 schools closed when the NDP was in power. School boards are consulting with their parents about how best to use their resources, how best to meet the accommodation needs of their students.

The member mentioned the Toronto Catholic District School Board. Last year, that board actually received $624 million in total revenues. The revenues this year will be about $70 million more for that particular board, about $695 million to that board. That's a board that, within that amount of revenues, has the leeway to work with the parents to reach the best possible accommodation.

You mentioned the Toronto District School Board. That board has about 80 schools that it no longer uses for public school purposes that at one point were used for public school purposes. Maybe some people think it's about time that it dealt with those schools that it's no longer using. The school board can sell those schools, keep the revenues and use the revenues to build schools where it needs schools. These are the kinds of considerations that boards are going through at the present time.

Mr Silipo: I can tell you that at no other time in memory have the school boards here in Toronto gone through the kind of process that they're going through now, where 130 schools are up for closure. That's not an annual process; that's a completely new process that we can put at your doorstep.

Minister, I'm looking through the application of your funding formula to school after school in my own community. I look at, for example, a school like Earlscourt, which will see its overall funding, including, by the way, the funding that you define as classroom funding, going down; going down this year over last year, and certainly going down, by the time the full formula is implemented, about 12%, 13% or 14% school by school, and it's all because of your funding formula. It's because of the way you calculate the space and the other pieces.

One of the points that was made this morning to us by the Metro Parent Network as they looked at the chaos that you're causing was to say that at the very least you should take some responsibility for what is going on now. The school boards are going through this process, school communities are going through this process. If you won't change the funding formula, will you or your officials or your colleagues be part of those committees, be part of those discussions so that you can explain directly to the parents why their schools are being shut down?

Hon David Johnson: The process was set in place because for many years - well, frankly, forever - there has been a great disparity in funding across the province. I'm sure that all members of this House will realize that many boards, many schools in areas where there wasn't the same wealth, for example, that there might be in an urban centre, were denied the resources, and the disparity between the boards was immense. Some boards had a considerable amount more to spend on their schools and their children than other boards in wealthier districts.

This government, for the first time, has attempted to be fair to all students, all schools, all boards, right across Ontario and provide the same level of support.

That level of support in the classroom is above and beyond what it has ever been before, and that's where it counts. Outside of the classroom, on administration, yes, it is reduced. I will confess to that: It has been reduced outside the classroom. But in grand total, there will be about $15 billion spent this year on elementary and secondary education. There will be an increase here in the Toronto Catholic District School Board and an increase in terms of total spending right across Ontario for elementary and secondary schools.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As you can appreciate, purchasing a car represents one of the largest single investments an individual or family can make next to buying a home. As with most industries in our economy, car manufacturers and car dealers are fiercely competing for a competitive advantage when it comes to offering potential customers the best deals. Car dealers and manufacturers are using very sophisticated marketing techniques to sell cars: incentives such as no money down, 0% financing and guarantees that a certain price would be the best price in town.

In Saturday's edition of the Scarborough Mirror, a community newspaper that my constituents in Scarborough Centre receive free of charge, there are no fewer than nine large, glossy ads for new or used cars promising 0% financing and other marketing techniques.

Minister, what is your ministry doing to ensure that consumers looking to buy a new or used car are protected from misleading or overly aggressive advertisements designed to give one car dealer a competitive advantage over another?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for the question. He's quite correct that buying a vehicle is a very significant purchase for most consumers.

The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council, otherwise known as OMVIC, is responsible for administration of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. They're also responsible for initiating some new marketing standards, which took effect on October 1 of this year.

We and OMVIC had certainly heard many complaints from consumers with respect to the quality and nature of advertising available across the province, particularly fine print advertising and some misleading information as well. OMVIC worked very closely with such groups as the CAA, Advertising Standards Canada, the Used Car Dealers Association and the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association to develop some new standards.

These include that the disclosure must be readable and easily detectable in the advertising, which means none of this really fine print which you can't read any more. They cannot contain statements which are considered ambiguous, misleading or deceptive by giving some sort of unclear or conflicting information to consumers, and they must disclose all taxes and licence charges. Lastly, there must be full disclosure of all information on leasing so that the consumer can fairly compare all leasing programs.

Mr Newman: As I mentioned earlier in my question, my constituents in Scarborough Centre, and in fact all Ontarians, are facing these types of ads every day in publications across our province. Providing guidelines on how dealers advertise is seen as a very positive step forward. However, enforcing these new guidelines is just as important.

I ask you today, Minister, what steps are the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council and the government taking to ensure that these new rules designed to help the consumers not just in Scarborough but across the entire province are indeed enforced?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: OMVIC is serious about cracking down on illegal activities. Within the first year of their mandate they've laid over 200 charges which have resulted in over 100 convictions for unfair practices on the sale of motor vehicles. This is very good news for consumers in Ontario. These rules are enforced a number of ways. There are sanctions that apply. If someone has seriously breached these standards and rules, there could be a revocation of the dealer's licence. Many car dealers have indicated their support for these guidelines. They see this initiative as a very positive step forward for both the industry and the consumer.

I might just end by quoting Mr Bob Pierce, the CEO of the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association, in the Toronto Sun: "`To our knowledge, no other jurisdiction in North America will apply such stringent automobile advertising guidelines,' says Pierce. `Dealers unanimously acknowledged that we had to put an end to the meaningless and often misleading messages appearing daily in Ontario.'"

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Education. For years and years the Manitoulin Board of Education has provided bus transportation to the clients of Hope Farm, which is operated by the Manitoulin Association for Community Living. They provided this service for no charge.

Manitoulin Island is 160 kilometres long and 80 kilometres wide. There is no other public transportation. Manitoulin ratepayers continue to support the school board by paying 70% of what they used to pay towards school expenses. Do you agree with the Sudbury school board's decision to make community living pay $7,000 to transport their clients on the school buses?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I think local boards, in connection with their communities, need to make those decisions. I can only say that from the point of view of the Ministry of Education, roughly $560 million is provided to school boards - it's about the same as last year; I think, actually, it might be just a little bit higher than last year - all across Ontario to provide for the transportation needs of their students, and then the responsibility for the school boards is to take that money and determine how to use it most effectively.

Mr Michael Brown: That's not what I asked the minister. I asked him if he agreed with the Sudbury school board's decision to charge community living $7,000 to transport their clients. The Minister of Community and Social Services will not provide that additional funding to community living. Manitoulin taxpayers continue to pay for their education services. Manitoulin taxpayers want those clients of community living to be able to avail themselves of the only public transportation on Manitoulin Island.

Minister, would you cut Ernie Checkeris a cheque for $7,000 so that community living and those clients can ride the school buses so they can get to Hope Farm?

Hon David Johnson: I would say, number one, that in areas like that, where there is only one method of transportation, then the local authorities are doing their job in attempting to use that to the maximum benefit. I would certainly encourage that. If the board of education can combine with other community uses and serve other people in a broader context, that's great. I certainly am pleased to see that.

I will say, in terms of cutting cheques, the kind of cheques that we have cut, some $560 million, which is up about $3 million from last year in the original announcement - and then we did actually, as the member may know, and I'd forgotten here just briefly, about three weeks ago cut an extra cheque, more monies that we provided to the school boards across Ontario. It will involve about $5 million this particular year. It recognizes the fact that there are fewer PA days. We provided the boards with more monies to accommodate those fewer PA days and transport the students.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who seems to have disappeared. Someone else was in his seat.

The minister will know that for many years the small town of White River, halfway between Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie on Highway 17, has experienced serious water shortages from time to time, both in hot spells in the summer and in the very cold parts of the winter.

The minister has authorized the expenditure of monies for a study of this problem. This is one of a number of studies that have been funded by the provincial government over the years. Could the minister explain what is missing from the previous studies that requires further study before action can be taken to resolve this long-standing lack-of-volume-of-water problem for the residents of White River?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I have this right at my fingertips. I was happy to meet with the municipal council of White River this past summer, and I listened to their concerns about their water quality problem. After that meeting, my officials met with the clerk and the engineers who were looking into this problem for this particular community. After much talk and consultation they decided it would be more prudent to look at all the different alternatives to deal with the problem of water quality in this community.

I understand that the problem of getting water to this community is that it has to come out of another lake, which is some distance away, and that it would be necessary to build a pipeline from that lake over to this community to get the water supply.

I am listening most sympathetically to this community as they indeed have a significant problem, and my officials will continue to work with them on it.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the hospital restructuring commission established by the Mike Harris government is deliberating in secret about the future of hospitals in the Niagara region and is expected to report in the autumn of this year;

"Whereas the St Catharines General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital, along with the Niagara rehabilitation centre, have in the past provided excellent medical care for the people of St Catharines;

"Whereas the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Port Colborne hospital and the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby have been key centres of health care in the Niagara Peninsula;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to maintain existing medical services provided at these hospitals, restore the proposed $43-million cut from operating funds for the Niagara hospitals; and

"That the Ontario Ministry of Health provide additional funding to expand health care services available in the Niagara region for residents in the Niagara Peninsula."

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

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition from hundreds and hundreds of people in my riding who are concerned about school closures. It reads:

"We, the undersigned taxpayers of rural Ontario, oppose the current Ministry of Education and Training funding formula in relation to rural boards. We believe that special consideration should be given to the fact that our population is spread out over a wide geographical area. A blanket funding formula for such a large and diverse province as Ontario will not work for all citizens equally."

I sign it to make an official record of this.

PALLIATIVE CARE

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

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

In support of this petition, I affix my signature.

MUSKOKA DEVELOPMENT

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition regarding the proposed sale of the Muskoka Centre property and subsequent redevelopment to a high-density condominium resort conference complex. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the sale of this site by the Ontario Realty Corp on behalf of the provincial government on grounds that the request-for-proposal process was unfair. The ORC permitted the winning bidder to purchase the site for a low price and to switch the proposal from a private school and training centre to the highest-density resort complex in Muskoka after executing an agreement of purchase and sale. The result of this is that other bidders lost the competition to a bid that was not even submitted prior to the close of the bidding date. No other competitive bids were requested.

"We are opposed to this development because of the high density on a small acreage and its potential for ecological destruction to both the land and the waters of Muskoka Bay. This bay is an extremely narrow, heavily trafficked, ecologically challenged body of water with no fresh water supply except through a 60-foot channel to Lake Muskoka.

"This development threatens not only the quality of life of the residents and users of the bay but also their safety.

"We want the provincial government to stop the sale now before cabinet approves it; we want them to conduct appropriate environmental studies on the site and on Muskoka Bay to determine appropriate use of the property and, following these, begin the RFP process again.

"We want the municipal government of the town of Gravenhurst to have public consultation with the residents of Muskoka Bay and surrounding area to ensure that this historical site is redeveloped only in a manner that will maintain its traditional role in the community; also in a manner that will protect the lands and waters of Muskoka Bay from further environmental pressure and will maintain the quality of life for its residents and users."

This petition is signed by 736 residents. It has been put together by Mary Lynn Beaven and the Muskoka Bay Association, and I am pleased to present it today.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 30 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."

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

"Whereas Mike Harris has imposed skyrocketing taxes on small business owners in Windsor because of his government's downloading debacle;

"Whereas many small business owners in Windsor who pay commercial property taxes face tax increases of more than 100%;

"Whereas the Harris government tax assessment system is confusing, chaotic and an administrative nightmare for municipalities;

"Whereas the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers called the Harris tax assessment system a `high-risk strategy' that will create `serious problems' for taxpayers and municipalities; and

"Whereas Windsor small businesses facing massive tax increases will be forced to pass on these increases to their customers, causing a decrease in business and causing the Ontario economy to suffer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to devise a fair and uncomplicated system of tax assessment."

I join the merchants in the Riverside BIA, the Pillette Road BIA, the Ford City BIA and the Wyandotte Street East BIA in signing these petitions.

DENTAL CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege to present a petition on behalf of the Honourable Janet Ecker, who as minister is unable to present but asked me to present the petition. There's a very interesting covering letter from one of the petitioners, Elizabeth Pagnello -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I'd like you to either read the petition or explain it.

Mr O'Toole: To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas a new

schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act; and

"Whereas the new

schedule fails to meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities, reduces services, places barriers to accessing care and creates an environment for various different dental programs across Ontario; and

"Whereas the move away from an emphasis on prevention under the new dental

schedule brings significant health risks for children and people with disabilities who are often least able to practise good oral health; and

"Whereas the new dental

schedule interferes with the patients' rights to consent to treatment by requiring administrators, and not patients or substitute decision-makers, to authorize and deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas there is no method for the patient to appeal a decision by a plan administrator to deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas pre-authorizations, called predeterminations in the new plan, will require that a higher level of confidential patient health information be disclosed to dental plan administrators; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has caused confusion among patients by introducing the plan without prior consultation and has not included any affected patient groups in consultations after releasing the new dental plan;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to delay full implementation of the new dental plan until the requirement for predeterminations is removed, patient confidentiality is protected, the plan emphasizes prevention in oral health care, and the government consults directly with affected patients to ensure the new plan will meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities."

I'm pleased to present this petition.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services;

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study;

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with these sentiments.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to reinvest money back into the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals in Hamilton.

"Whereas the Harris funding cutbacks are having a devastating impact on hospitals and patient care across Ontario, and have resulted in an anticipated $38-million deficit at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals; and

"Whereas the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals will receive $4 million less in revenue from the Ministry of Health and other sources; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris funding cuts are causing a crisis in hospital care in Hamilton-Wentworth, with hospitals facing huge deficits, cuts to patient care and bed closings; and

"Whereas Scott Rowand, president of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp's hospitals, spoke out recently in the Hamilton Spectator saying, `For the first time in my career, I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures of programs and services needed by the community'; and

"Whereas Mr Rowand went on to say: `We need more cash in the system and we need it now. And that is cash to deal with the issues that we are dealing with today. Don't ask us to do anything more because people in the system are at their limit.'

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government stop underfunding Ontario's hospitals to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and act immediately to restore funding to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals so they can continue providing quality health care services to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth."

I continue to support the petitioners in favour of helping Hamilton hospitals.

GERMAN HERITAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of German descent have been a part of Ontario's history since the days of pre-Confederation; and

"Whereas the German culture has always been an integral component of the cultural mosaic of Ontario; and

"Whereas we wish to demonstrate official recognition of the positive contribution of German heritage in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass the bill entitled the German Pioneers Day Act and we respectfully petition the government of Ontario to designate the day following Thanksgiving Day as the date of the annual German Pioneers Day."

I will be happy to affix my signature.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario in 1996;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Minister of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement.

SCHOOL PRAYER

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here signed by a number of members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, number 370. It reads generally as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, are firm supporters of the public school education system and the Protestant faith;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."

DENTAL CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas a new

schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act;

"Whereas the new

schedule fails to meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities, reduces services, places barriers to accessing care and creates an environment for various different dental programs across Ontario;

"Whereas the move away from an emphasis on prevention under the new dental

schedule brings significant health risks for children and people with disabilities who are often least able to practise good oral hygiene;

"Whereas the new dental

schedule interferes with the patients' rights to consent to treatment by requiring administrators, and not patients or substitute decision-makers, to authorize and deny dental treatment;

"Whereas there is no method for the patient to appeal a decision by a plan administrator to deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas pre-authorizations, called predeterminations in the new plan, will require that a higher level of confidential patient care information be disclosed to dental plan administrators; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has caused confusion among patients by introducing the plan without adequate consultation and has not included any affected patient groups in consultations after releasing the new dental plan;

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

"Delay full implementation of the new dental plan until the requirement for predeterminations is removed, patient confidentiality is protected, the plan emphasizes prevention in oral health care, and the government consults directly with affected patients to ensure the new plan will meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with the petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Mr Sterling moves that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 68,

An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, when Bill 68 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and, at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on administration of justice;

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted;

That the standing committee on administration of justice shall be authorized to meet for one day at its regularly scheduled meeting time for the purposes of public hearing organization;

That the standing committee on administration of justice shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill at any time during its regularly scheduled meeting times as deemed necessary by the committee and for four days during the November recess;

That, pursuant to standing order 74(d), the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the committee;

That the committee be authorized to meet for a further two days on its regularly scheduled sitting days for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and that the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on the second day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

That, at 4:30 pm on the final day of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration, or not later than November 30, 1998, whichever is earliest. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on administration of justice, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of such 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 the vote on third reading of the bill may, at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House, be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

I will be sharing my time with the members for Cambridge, Quinte, Scarborough Centre and Kitchener, and will leave the floor to our members.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): We are debating a motion to limit debate on Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act. I will be speaking on behalf of the Attorney General and will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre, the member for Quinte and the member for Kitchener.

In the past 30 years, the demand for legal aid has changed but the legal aid plan itself has not changed to meet this need. The legal aid status quo is no longer working for the people of Ontario. The plan needs to do a better job of meeting the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid services. The purpose of this bill is to reform legal aid to meet the needs of Ontarians now and in the future.

We intend to implement reforms through the creation of a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario. This organization would be independent of government and responsible for finding ways to deliver better legal services to legal aid clients.

The time for change is long past due. Between 1989 and 1994, government spending on legal aid doubled. The previous government negotiated a four-year memorandum of understanding to deal with the funding, but there was no corresponding reform of the plan or developing new ways to provide services.

In 1995, when this government assumed office, we honoured the funding levels guaranteed by the previous government but insisted on financial stability and more accountability to taxpayers. During the past three years, we have worked with the Law Society of Upper Canada to successfully bring legal aid spending under control.

The next logical step to reinvent the plan is to improve service and accountability. This legislation would meet that goal by establishing the mandate, governance, accountability, services and funding mechanism for Legal Aid Ontario. The new organization would operate on three principles: better service, accountability for public funds, and independence.

The main elements of the proposed act are as follows: Legal Aid Ontario would be an independent statutory agency; the new organization would be responsible to find better ways to deliver legal aid services; it would be led by an expert board with more public representation; it would be more open and accountable for the use of public funds; a more modern, efficient administrative structure would be established; there would be more scope for innovation and flexibility in service delivery.

In developing these proposed reforms, we conducted two phases of extensive consultation. The first phase began with the first comprehensive review of the Ontario legal aid plan since it began in 1967. In December 1996, against the backdrop of the need for change, the Attorney General established the Ontario Legal Aid Review. The review was chaired by John McCamus, a legal aid professor and one of Canada's foremost legal aid scholars. He was supported by an independent panel. Members reflecting a diverse range of experience were best qualified to provide advice on the future course of the legal aid plan in Ontario.

The task force was asked to make recommendations for a flexible, efficient and effective service that reflected changes in population, laws, and the legal aid needs of Ontarians; in brief, to recommend changes to legal aid that will result in more and better services for all Ontarians.

The panel received input from a wide cross-section of people and groups. Major legal, community and user groups were involved in public hearings. The panel received more than 200 written submissions from individuals and organizations. Examples are the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Last September, the team submitted its review to the Attorney General. This now forms the blueprint for the creation of a new delivery model for legal aid services.

Following the completion of the Ontario Legal Aid Review, our government consulted widely about its recommendations. We obtained input from the public, community groups, consumers of legal aid, legal aid clinics and the legal community in general. We asked them for their views, and the response was consistent. Everyone agreed that after 30 years without reform it was time to reinvent legal aid and that creating a new organization was the best approach. People wanted a plan that was independent of both government and service providers, and they wanted the plan to be accountable, well managed and financially stable.

The proposed legislation we have before us is the result of that consultation process. We have worked with legal aid, the public, the legal community and those representing users of legal aid to ensure that the proposed reforms are balanced, fair and in the public interest. Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, if passed, would accomplish these goals.

Let me provide some detail about the proposed new organization, Legal Aid Ontario. The new organization's focus will be service. It would identify and analyze the legal needs unique to Ontarians from one end of the province to another. Legal Aid Ontario would respond to those needs by setting priorities and developing high-quality services that promote access to the justice system.

Bill 68, if passed, would enable the new organization to enhance the existing certificate and clinic systems. Innovation and creativity would be the hallmarks of the new approach. People and groups would be encouraged to come forward with groundbreaking ideas for new ways to deliver those services. Legal Aid Ontario would continue to expand the pilot projects currently being developed to test alternative and improved forms of service delivery.

However, it is not our intention that the successes of the current legal aid system should be abandoned. Along with the new approaches, the best features of the current system would be preserved. Legal aid clinics would continue to deliver front-line services, as would certificates provided to legal aid clients to hire private lawyers in criminal and family matters. These would continue as the foundation of the delivery of services. The result would be services that are more flexible, effective and accessible for Ontarians.

Stable funding will be the key to this success. The Ontario government has committed to providing Legal Aid Ontario with a guaranteed budget for the first three years of the organization's operations. Provincial funding would be set at the same amount as this current fiscal year. This would provide the new organization with the financial stability it will need to focus on delivering high-quality services and implementing change.

As I said previously, one of the key issues raised during the consultation was the need for more accountability in the use of public funds. Legal aid's annual budget is slightly less than one quarter of a billion dollars. Ontarians rightfully want that money to deliver the maximum amount of high-quality services for people who need them the most. Legal Aid Ontario would be expected to manage its financial resources and deliver services effectively. The organization would be more open and accountable for public money spent on legal aid.

Let me share with you how the proposed legislation would help to ensure Legal Aid Ontario would achieve the goal of accountability: There would be more public representation on the board of directors. The organization's annual report would be tabled in this Legislature. The Provincial Auditor would audit the organization every year. Legal Aid Ontario would be required to obtain the Ministry of the Attorney General's approval for annual budgets, three-year funding projections, an annual business plan and multi-year strategic plans.

These reforms would ensure that the organization uses its budget to deliver the maximum amount of high-quality services and that the costs are consistent with its budget.

We are proposing a governance model that will enable Legal Aid Ontario to be managed in a more modern and efficient manner. That leadership would come right from the top, from a governance structure that would be led by an expert board of directors. These directors would have the skills and experience necessary to manage the new organization. They would have broad expertise in the law, the justice system, business and financial management, and expertise in the provision of services to legal aid consumers. The board would be chosen from members of the public, legal aid consumers, the business sector, the legal profession, and reflect Ontario's geographic diversity.

I believe that the model, as proposed, will in fact bring us into a new age of legal aid in this province. I now thank the Speaker and would have the next speaker address the House.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It's my honour to stand today in support of Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, to serve people in our communities who need legal aid.

I want to take you back, Mr Speaker, a little bit into the history of legal aid. Prior to 1951, there was no legal aid per se in the province of Ontario. It was supplied by lawyers who had clients who needed that basic service. Those lawyers, on their own, made their choice and said, "This is something that we can contribute to our society."

The lawyers did that on their own and it worked reasonably well in some cases and not so well in others. This is one of the reasons that with the voluntary plan from 1951 to 1967 the lawyers got together as a society and said they must have a Law Society Act to make sure that they could supply legal aid to the people who were having trouble meeting the requirements of paying for the law, for them to have lawyers represent them in court and to be there.

The joint committee on legal aid was established in 1963 when by the early 1960s it appeared that the voluntary plan did not meet the growing demand for what was needed in our legal aid community. In July 1963, the government appointed the joint committee on legal aid to make sure that they could address the concerns and answer the concerns of the then Attorney General. Three members were appointed by the law society to hold public hearings across the province and to make sure that they could conduct a forum that was fair for everybody across the province.

In 1965, the report of the joint committee put together the views and what the charges were and established a system where there would be some monies put aside for those people who were serving as lawyers to those clients, so they would receive some remuneration for their efforts.

Therefore, it started in 1963 and the Legal Aid Act of 1966, proclaimed into law March 29, 1967, followed the bulk of the recommendations of the hearings that went on for some two and a half years to establish the Ontario legal aid plan. The plan was based entirely on the judicare model and administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

It went on for some time from 1966, and in 1973 the government appointed a provincial task force on legal aid to assess the performance of the plan. The plan was running a little bit amok and out of direction. They thought there should be a little bit broader coverage, in particular to advise on

summary assistance and in poverty law matters such as many landlord-and-tenant disputes, workers' compensation and welfare entitlement cases. There were significant geographic gaps in coverage in our province, some areas receiving good coverage and some areas receiving no coverage.

The funding went on from 1973 until 1995. In 1995, the third party brought into being that the fund was way out of whack, that there was a lid on it, that the criteria they were putting out for all the information for legal aid, the certificates that were being picked up, all of a sudden were growing at a very dramatic rate. They signed an agreement with the law society to make sure that the society tried to keep those costs in check, making sure that legal aid stayed within the framework they had intended.

In 1995, as this government assumed office, we realized that the cap of some $275 million, with a memorandum of agreement that would expire in 1998, was going to run way over. When that amount of money was going to be passed, as a government we were trying to keep control on our costs and to make sure that every department worked within the budgets we had. We had to go to the law society and ask them to implement some changes and get a handle on keeping the cost of the operation down. The cost of legal aid had swelled over the amount that was there and looked as if it would quite possibly double.

If those kind of numbers were going to double, it would have been very hard for a government to try to meet its budget with one sector of it over as far as it was.

At that time, in 1995, on December 13, the law society decided to take that course and see whether it could put some control on maintaining the cost of legal aid at somewhere around $275 million a year. The law society, in its restructuring, tightened up on the certificates they were giving out to the lawyers who were looking after legal aid. They also brought that back to the point where now, in 1998, they were going to make do with that amount of money. In fact, they were going to come in under budget.

There was a need out there for some people to still have some legal aid and there was an understanding that the law society didn't feel as if it wanted to continue to operate the legal aid system entirely on its own. So there was a structure of administration put together, through a group of people who worked together who decided there was some way that we could remove from the law society the requirement of having to run the legal aid system.

They came up with the idea that there would be some 11 people on a board, some of them appointed by the Attorney General and the rest appointed by the public. They would form the basis of a group of people that would look after legal aid, guaranteeing it to the people of Ontario who need legal aid and still working within that framework. We, as a government, guaranteed that the legal aid system would be funded for the next three years with the same dollars that we have put into it in the past.

That's a little bit of the background on legal aid, and I'm very pleased to stand in support of it today. I turn my time over to other members.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on the motion dealing with Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998.

The legal aid system in Ontario is indeed long overdue for change. The status quo was not working for Ontarians who needed access to legal services. Although the plan has been restored to financial stability, it is not able to provide adequate services to meet the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid through the current system. At the same time, the Law Society of Upper Canada has expressed its view that it did not wish to continue to manage the plan at this time. The law society has proposed that it no longer continue funding legal aid once administration is transferred.

The law society has pointed out that no other professional group in Ontario is required to contribute directly to the cost of a government-run social program. Moreover, Ontario is the only province which currently requires lawyers to pay a levy to fund legal aid as well as a statutory clawback on lawyers' billings. We must remember that the Law Society Act requires the Law Foundation of Ontario to contribute 75% of all revenues earned from a lawyer's trust account to the Ontario legal aid plan. The law foundation will continue to contribute these funds.

The proposed changes build upon the first comprehensive review of the Legal Aid Act in the history of Ontario. Law professor John McCamus chaired the review. McCamus is one of Canada's foremost legal scholars and formed the blueprint for the creation of a new model to deliver legal aid services in Ontario. Recognizing that the demand for legal aid had changed greatly during the past three decades and that between 1989 and 1994 spending on legal aid had actually doubled, the government launched the review to ensure that the $230 million spent annually on legal aid provided the maximum amount of high-quality legal services to those Ontarians who need them the most.

During the legal aid review, major legal, community and user groups were involved in public meetings. The review received more than 200 written submissions.

Following the release of the Ontario Legal Aid Review in September 1997, our government consulted widely to get the public's feedback. We consulted extensively with all sectors of society, from consumer groups working with lower-income Ontarians like the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, St Leonard's Society of Canada, and the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses to representatives of consumer groups who work with disadvantaged communities. This government met with representatives from the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped and from Aboriginal Legal Services, as well as the National Council of Welfare and the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Yet the government did not stop there. This government also met with the legal profession. The government met with the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, the Family Lawyers' Association and the refugee lawyers' association.

This government met and talked with the concerned interest groups because they are the ones who use legal aid and the system of legal aid. They are the ones who are most affected by any changes that are implemented.

The responses we received were both consistent and relevant. The people of Ontario said over and over again that they wanted a legal aid plan that was independent of both government and service providers. They want a legal aid plan that is accountable and well managed, and they want a legal plan that is fiscally responsible. Yet we must at all times ensure that the result of any changes must be improved services for Ontarians.

In preparing for the debate today, I consulted with a number of lawyers myself. I talked to one lawyer from Hamilton who has practised for 30 years. Ted Adler said, "Any changes to the legal aid system in Ontario must ensure that the people who need legal aid in Ontario and qualify for legal aid receive it."

This government has worked with legal aid, the public, the legal community and those representing users of legal aid to ensure the proposed reforms were balanced, fair and in the public interest. I believe Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, if passed, accomplishes these goals.

In order to ensure that the proposed agency has the financial stability to accomplish the proposed changes, the government has committed to three years of stable funding at the 1998-99 level.

The new agency called Legal Aid Ontario will provide high-quality services, it will develop flexible and innovative ways to deliver services, and it will run pilot projects to test their new approaches.

The act establishes the mandate, governance structure, accountability and services for the new organization called Legal Aid Ontario. Legal Aid Ontario would begin operation on April 1, 1999. Until then, legal aid services will continue to be provided by the Ontario legal aid plan, which is operated by the Law Society of Upper Canada under the terms of a memorandum of understanding with the government of Ontario. A plan would be put in place to ensure the smooth transition to the new organization.

Legal Aid Ontario would also be independent of government and be responsible for finding ways to better deliver legal aid services.

The main elements of the proposed act are to create an independent statutory agency to better provide more services to Ontarians. The act will create an expert board with more public representation. The act will ensure the new agency is publicly accountable.

Legal Aid Ontario would be open and accountable to taxpayers through the following measures: representation of the public on the board of directors; an annual report to be tabled right here in the Legislature; and an annual audit to be performed by the Provincial Auditor.

Legal Aid Ontario would also enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Attorney General every five years. Under this memorandum of understanding, it would agree to provide the Attorney General with detailed information on its operation and plans, including its annual business plans and its policies and priorities for providing legal aid services. This act will provide the statutory mandate, board composition, organizational structure and funding mechanism for Legal Aid Ontario.

Part II of the bill will create Legal Aid Ontario. The legislation will ensure that the new Legal Aid Ontario remains independent from both the government and the legal profession. Independence is necessary in order to ensure that the organization represents the public and is not in a conflict with government. Our approach is consistent with legal aid plans in most provinces. Among the 10 provinces, only the legal aid plans of Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick are presently administered by provincial law societies. Six other provinces administer legal aid through an independent statutory organization.

The board of Legal Aid Ontario will be composed of 11 people appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Five will be selected by the Attorney General from a list of persons recommended by the Law Society of Upper Canada and five will be recommended by the Attorney General. The legislation states that the majority of the directors would not be lawyers and no more than three could be benchers of the law society.

The chair of the board of Legal Aid Ontario will be selected by the Attorney General from a list recommended by a committee comprised of the Attorney General, the treasurer of the law society and a mutually agreed upon third party. The board members will be appointed to fixed terms of two or three years and could not be dismissed before the end of their terms without cause.

In drafting this bill, my colleague always remembered one key question: Is what we are doing going to improve legal aid services in Ontario? Since its inception, legal aid has and will continue to issue certificates to private lawyers in criminal and family matters, and this will remain the foundation of service provision. Clinics will continue to deliver front-line services in areas of law which particularly affect lower-income individuals. This bill would provide us with ways to supplement and enhance the existing certificate and clinic programs. At the same time, Bill 68 will ensure that we have a legal aid system that will serve us for the next 30 years.

Legal Aid Ontario will be responsible for high-quality services to meet the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid. It would be obligated to encourage new ways to better deliver services and to ensure that services are cost-effective and efficient. The agency will always be required to establish priorities and policies guiding the provision of services.

The proposed bill provides a statutory basis for the major areas of service delivery. It focuses on the key areas of legal aid law, including criminal, family, clinic and mental health law. But the legislation leaves specific priority setting to the corporation. Legal Aid Ontario could also provide legal aid services in other areas of civil law.

The bill provides Legal Aid Ontario with the flexibility to use a variety of service delivery methods, including but not limited to certificates - these are the vouchers provided to legal aid clients to hire lawyers - community clinics, staff offices, student legal aid societies, aboriginal legal services corporations, duty counsel, and alternative dispute resolution.

We fully expect that Legal Aid Ontario will continue to expand the pilot projects currently being developed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

In order to ensure the stability and continuation of high-quality services, the bill provides that certificates will remain the foundation of the delivery of criminal and family law services.

Some have raised concerns about how these changes will affect immigration and refugee services. The plan will be issuing the same number of immigration and refugee certificates as last year. The bill would guarantee that Legal Aid Ontario would maintain service for immigration and refugees at current levels for two years. Let us remember that although the Immigration and Refugee Board is the responsibility of the federal government, it is Ontario that pays for the majority of legal aid costs for those appearing before it.

The federal government has cut funding to Ontario over the past several years. Federal funding for immigration and refugee cases has declined from $14.4 million in 1991-92 to an estimated $3.8 million in 1997-98. I would hope that the federal government would increase funding for immigration and refugee law services, but then again I'd be holding my breath for more funding from the federal Liberals because it's the Liberal government in Ottawa that has cut over $2 billion in health care funding to Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You've given it all away in the tax cut. They gave you money to give away in the tax cut.

Mr Newman: I hear all the members in the Liberal Party here today agree that the federal government has cut over $2 billion in health care to Ontario. If the feds do not care about the health of Canadians, how can they possibly care about ensuring that newcomers to Canada are properly represented?

The Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, provides a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, to deliver better legal aid services to Ontarians. The organization will develop new and innovative ways to better provide legal aid services.

In the Common Sense Revolution we promised the people of Ontario that we would reform the legal aid system, and once again we have kept that promise. Another promise made, another promise kept.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to point out the significant improvements that the Legal Aid Services Act is going to make to the legal aid system.

When the legal aid system was introduced 33 years ago, it was a recognition by the government of the day that there was a significant need to provide substantial financial assistance to low-income Ontarians for legal services. That was to ensure that all citizens of Ontario, regardless of their status in life, would be entitled to proper legal defence in some cases or proper legal advice in others. I would like to point out that it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, which formed the government of the day, which established this new legal aid component of our social safety net. That social safety net, the legal aid system, was for low-income Ontarians.

It is only fitting, then, that it is this party which is working diligently to make significant improvements to the legal aid system. As has been a hallmark of this government, prior to making any changes to the existing system, this government sought out the advice of everyone involved. Everyone affected by any changes was asked to make submissions. In all, during the legal aid review, more than 200 written submissions were considered.

The submissions were from a wide spectrum of Ontarians, including groups working with low-income Ontarians such as Elizabeth Fry, the John Howard Society, the St Leonard's Society of Canada and the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. Groups working with the disadvantaged communities, such as the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, Aboriginal Legal services of Toronto, the National Council of Welfare and the Canadian Mental Health Association, made written submissions.

Of course, let's not forget the lawyers' groups. Lawyers' groups were also invited to express their suggestions to improve the system. Submissions were received from such prominent groups as the law society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the refugee lawyers' association. A consistent view expressed by all these groups was that the legal aid program must be made independent both from the government and the legal profession.

The Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, establishes this independence through the founding of a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, which is an independent advisory body, a statutory agency which boasts an expert board of 11 directors. The establishment of this new, independent board ensures that Legal Aid Ontario is no longer in a situation where there will be a conflict of interest between lawyers and/or the government involved in the legal action which may be taking place.

Under this new act, Legal Aid Ontario is an independent statutory corporation established to oversee the delivery of all legal aid services. This is another example of a series of ongoing examples of where this government listened to various stakeholders and acted on their excellent advice.

A second significant improvement needed to the existing legal aid system is the assurance that there will be adequate stable funding of the program to ensure that legal services would be available to those who qualify financially. The Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, ensures stable funding.

I am very pleased to see this government's commitment to provide stable funding. This government is committed to providing three years of stable funding for the new agency at the 1998-99 level of $230 million. However, in providing stable funding, this government is also committed to ensuring that taxpayers' money is being well spent, and it has established a very businesslike ap