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

November 3, 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

L054a - Tue 3 Nov 1998 / Mar 3 Nov 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EGG PRODUCERS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

WINDSOR-ESSEX COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE

GROWTH IN NORTHUMBERLAND

LINDA AND DONALD LETOURNEAU

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

DONALD DAVIS

CORRECTION

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO XXIX SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES BID ENDORSEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 APPUYANT LA CANDIDATURE DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO CONCERNANT LES XXIX E JEUX OLYMPIQUES D'ÉTÉ

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

LONG-TERM CARE

VISITORS

PROPERTY TAXATION

AMATEUR SPORT

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

PROSTATE CANCER

TAXATION

PARKING FEES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PALLIATIVE CARE

ROAD SAFETY

VANDALISM

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NORTHERN SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES PUBLICS DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): For the House and for the benefit of the Premier, let me read from a letter I received from a seven-year-old student in my area, in the neighbourhood of the Venerable John Merlini Catholic School, which is one of the schools on the chopping block.

This is what the seven-year-old says. I'll just read some parts of the letter:

"I have Prader-W" syndrome - I cannot read all the words because it's been faxed to me - "and I am in the developmentally delayed class there.... My mom has been told that you may close down my school." She's talking about you, Mr Harris. "I know it was very difficult for my mommy and daddy to find this wonderful school for me. Our family was so fortunate that our local school was able to take me and make me feel wanted there."

It continues, "My schoolmates are learning how to understand how I talk (not so good) but they really try to accept me for what I am. Also, they look out for me, because I don't understand things like safety rules and crossing the street and not wandering off by myself."

It's letters like this that make us understand what it means to close a local school. I'm calling on the Premier to -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I address the Solicitor General and the Minister of Labour very specifically. This province is at great risk of losing its volunteer firefighting services and it is putting volunteer firefighters at great risk.

Let me tell you specifically why. This issue was raised by volunteer firefighters from Pelham before their town council during the course of this week.

Under the new so-called Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, a volunteer firefighter who is injured in the course of performing his or her volunteer firefighting duties is excluded from any what we called historically workers' compensation protection or coverage. You know who these women and men are. They selflessly and with great commitment volunteer their services in communities across Ontario, and I can speak highly of those in Niagara region and those in Pelham.

They're extremely concerned that should they be injured - and the risk is considerable; they perform very dangerous work - their workplace-provided insurance will not cover them and that they've been omitted in their unique role as volunteers from consideration in the new Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

I call upon the Solicitor General and the Minister of Labour to respond very promptly to this concern. It's important if we're going to protect volunteer firefighting services, if the communities that are served are going to be able to maintain their role and if the concerns raised, as they were in Pelham, are going to be addressed very specifically and clearly, without equivocation.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The member for Welland-Thorold has made a very good point. I know he wants to support my Bill 75, which corrects the problem he is articulating, which I introduced -

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

EGG PRODUCERS

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I was most pleased this morning to host a breakfast reception put on by the egg producers' association that was well attended by people from both sides of the House.

The Ontario egg producers represent 635 egg producers, including 14 successful operations in my own riding of Brant-Haldimand. The egg industry is worth $300 million a year to the Ontario economy and represents some 3,000 jobs. The egg producers are self-funded and self-policed, with mandatory egg safety programs to ensure consumers receive a high-quality product at a good price.

Ontario egg producers are preparing for the World Trade Organization talks set to begin in late 1999. They will be making their position known to the Ministry of Agriculture over the next several months as it develops Ontario's position on the World Trade Organization talks to take to the federal government.

In the meantime, Mr Speaker, I can tell you that Ontario egg producers are meeting current World Trade Organization commitments in terms of increasing market access and reducing tariff levels.

They will be looking to this government to carry the message to Ottawa that, above all, trade must be fair and equitable among all partners and that Ontario's egg marketing system is working well to meet the consumer's need for a safe, high-quality product at a reasonable price.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Last week it was announced that six schools in my area have been slated for closure and many students, parents and teachers are very upset and concerned about the impact this will have on the quality of local education. In the S-D-G area, 17 of the 22 high schools are the only facilities in the community. Therefore, the proposed school closures will have significant consequences.

Upper Canada District School Board vice-chair Art Buckland states, "It shows it's the beginning of the end of rural schools."

From closed Ministry of Natural Resources offices to the consolidation of services at the Cornwall General Hospital to the proposed closure of six area schools, residents in my area are protesting this government's cuts.

When will Premier Harris and S-D-G member Noble Villeneuve listen to the residents and organizations like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who are calling for a moratorium on rural school closures until a thorough impact assessment has been conducted?

On behalf of the residents of the greater Cornwall area, I urge this government to reconsider its education funding formula and recognize the special circumstances surrounding rural schools in the greater Cornwall area and across the province.

WINDSOR-ESSEX COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): A long and bitter strike by administrative workers at the Windsor-Essex community care access centre is now over. This was a strike that lasted much longer than it had to because of the Mike Harris approval of the use of replacement workers.

We are thankful to people like June Muir and her colleagues from the Canadian Union of Public Employees for drawing a line in the sand and saying to this government: "Enough is enough. We won't stand for the privatization of our health care system through the back door."

These courageous workers have also illustrated problems related to our local community care access centre. While CCACs in other parts of Ontario engage in outreach activities, ours has a bunker-down mentality. They refuse to make public minutes from their meetings. While others encourage membership in the CCACs, you can't even get a membership form from ours.

An audit has been conducted by the minister responsible for long-term care of the Windsor-Essex CCAC, but despite repeated requests from me, it still has not been made public. Calls to the deputy minister have gone unanswered.

My question to the minister responsible for long-term care is, what is in that audit? Why isn't it being made public? Minister, what is it that you're afraid of? Patients in our community need -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Northumberland.

GROWTH IN NORTHUMBERLAND

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the growth of small business in Northumberland.

Last Tuesday the Honourable Al Palladini spent a day in Northumberland, met small business people and spoke to the Port Hope and Cobourg chambers of commerce in Port Hope.

In my riding of Northumberland, small businesses employ hundreds of people and contribute significantly to the local economy. Over the past few years many businesses have experienced tremendous growth.

For example, Merv Heffernan, owner of Quinte Bumper and Fender in Trenton, has watched his business expand from his garage to a large industrial facility. Kokimo Candle Works in Cramahe township has gone from a part-time activity for the Quinn family to a full-time going concern. Electrocables in Trenton has grown rapidly. Peter Davis, the owner of Electrocables, has seen his plant double in size over this past year. Cam-Tran, located in Colborne Industrial Park, is also growing. Two weeks ago the company announced a $1-million industrial expansion which will lead to further employment opportunities. This is one of six expansions in the past 14 years.

These are just a few of the small businesses in Northumberland that have benefited from our government's economic policies. By cutting taxes, eliminating red tape and putting the economy on the right track, small businesses in Northumberland have been able to thrive and prosper in Ontario's economy.

LINDA AND DONALD LETOURNEAU

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Many friends and neighbours have worked tirelessly with Linda Letourneau to force the government to pay attention to her husband's need for the drug Neupogen. The public support that the Letourneaus have received has resulted in a victory for Donald. He will be receiving Neupogen through the Ontario drug benefit plan.

I would like to publicly thank Rev Dave Williamson from Chatham and Linda's neighbour Eric Rice, who accompanied Linda to London to intercept the Premier, and the many other friends and neighbours who have helped. Thanks also to the many journalists who have brought this story to public attention and forced the government's hand.

But this victory is not the end of the story. The courage of Linda and Donald Letourneau in taking on the Harris government for this miracle drug is not restricted to their own need. Donald wants to ensure that all patients who need Neupogen will get it. He does not want anyone else to experience the delays, the agony of uncertainty and the exposure of their private lives that the Letourneau family has endured. It has taken three tortuous weeks of anxious waiting and undue delays to force the government to do the right thing.

The Ontario drug benefit plan must provide the drug without restriction to all patients who need it. We cannot and must not have two-tier health care in Ontario.

We all appreciate Donald's deep concern for other patients.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I would like to read three quotes from a document to you.

The first one: "The opposition has quickly realized the powerful resonance that pending school closures have with the public. We can expect them to use school closures as a symbol of the government putting a higher priority on cost-cutting than providing a quality education for kids."

The second one: "The emotional impact of our advertising is perhaps even more important than the content of our copy."

The third one: "The tone of advertising should be designed to help the target audience believe that our government is fair and reasonable, confident and optimistic, having the guts (or the courage) to do the right thing."

Last night on CFRB, the Minister of Community and Social Services said it four times. The moderator said, "He has the courage" -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

DONALD DAVIS

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise to commemorate one of the pillars of my hometown of Smiths Falls in the riding of Lanark-Renfrew and Bob Runciman's riding of Leeds-Grenville.

Donald Davis passed away October 10 at the age of 76. He was born in Smiths Falls in 1922 and lived there most of his life. Mr Davis was employed for many years with Ontario Hydro, and though his job often took him to other towns in Ontario, he always returned to Smiths Falls, the town and area he loved.

Don always worked for the good of his family - his wife, Lois, and his children, Brenda, Russ and Keith - his friends and his community. He served as a trustee on the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education for 33 years. The board named the Don Davis Resource Centre at Lombardy school in honour of his outstanding service.

He was a deacon and trustee on the board of the First Baptist Church and was recently recognized for his 65-year church membership. Mr Davis was also a long-time member of the Masonic Lodge, Tunis Temple and Land O'Lakes Shrine Club. As well, he spent 43 years as an amateur beekeeper, though managing 200 hives sounds like a full-time job to me.

Mr Davis served overseas in Germany and Holland during the Second World War with the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders.

For all his dedication and love of the area, Mr Davis was honoured with the Canada 125 medal in 1997 for his achievements within the community.

CORRECTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to correct my record. You will note that on page 3136 of the Hansard record of House debates from yesterday, it reads, "I have a petition which was circulated by Mrs Margaret Pigeon of Goulais River. It is signed by 1,718 residents...." In fact, Speaker, it should have read, "It is signed by 2,718 residents."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. I was on pins and needles and I was wondering when you were going to correct that record, member for Algoma.

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 1998 Annual Report: Office of the Provincial Auditor, who just happens to be here in the Speaker's gallery today. Welcome, Mr Peters.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the subcommittee of the general government committee. That subcommittee decided on hearings for the apprenticeship legislation as per the order of the House. The subcommittee reported to the committee, and I read from the subcommittee report:

"That the committee will hold four days of public hearings. The committee will spend one full day in each of the following cities: Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa. Furthermore, the committee will divide one single day in order to hold hearings in Hamilton, and Windsor."

When that subcommittee report, which was unanimous involving the members of all three parties and the Chair, was submitted to the full committee, there was a motion put by one of the government members that the committee go to London. That was defeated and then subsequently another motion put that would require the committee just to spend one day just in Windsor and not go to Hamilton, and that was carried.

My question is this: Why is it, when there is unanimous agreement in the subcommittee, that a committee would reject the report of the subcommittee and arbitrarily decide to prohibit people from the Hamilton-Niagara region the opportunity to make presentations on this legislation on apprenticeships in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's a point that you have to bring up at the committee level. It's not something I could even entertain to rule on.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO XXIX SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES BID ENDORSEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 APPUYANT LA CANDIDATURE DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO CONCERNANT LES XXIX e JEUX OLYMPIQUES D'ÉTÉ

Mr Kells moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 77,

An Act to endorse the proposed bid of the City of Toronto to host the XXIX Summer Olympic Games / Projet de loi 77, Loi visant à appuyer la candidature que se propose de présenter la cité de Toronto pour accueillir les XXIX e Jeux olympiques d'été.

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

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): The bill endorses the bid that the city of Toronto proposes to make to host the 29th Summer Olympic Games in the year 2008.

The bill recognizes that Ontario's participation in the bid process is a necessity if it is to be successful. This involvement can only be sustained through mutually acceptable terms enshrined in the agreement between Ontario and the organizers of the Toronto proposal. It also asks all municipalities in Ontario and citizens of Ontario to voluntarily support the bid.

If I may, I've already had an opportunity to visit the riding of Kingston and The Islands and tour the facility there. I'm sure that when this bill comes up for debate, the honourable member from that riding will be talking favourably about that facility. I've also been to Oshawa to see the facility down there for skeet shooting.

I'm sure that by and large all the members will join in support of this bill.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): Today I had the opportunity to listen first hand to several care workers, people like Linda Kong at St Paul's L'Amoreaux Seniors Centre in Scarborough. These are people who bring vital services into the homes of our seniors, to persons with disabilities and those recovering from surgeries. They have an aptitude for helping people, and they have a vital role in the restructuring of Ontario's health services to ensure that those services meet the needs of the individuals instead of forcing the individual to fit the services.

This government has made a number of tough decisions that bring Ontario closer to a vision for health services for our future: more integrated, community based, high-quality services. We know that quality health care isn't just about technology and buildings; it's about compassionate service that meets people's needs. That's why our plan focuses on individual care that's closer to home and part of their community.

We are funding several key initiatives that put our long-term-care services on a new, more integrated path. After 10 years of promises, this government created 43 community care access centres to provide one-stop shopping for home care and other community services. Funding for these centres and other long-term-care community services has in fact increased by 40% across this province in three years, and 70% right here in Toronto.

The front-line home care workers I met with this morning provide these essential services in their community, and there are thousands more like them all across our province. They are very proud of the job they do and, more importantly, of the lives they touch. They are valued by the people they serve for the caring, personal and professional attitude and attention they provide.

The people they care for may be frail, may have some trouble climbing stairs and may take a little longer to remember things. Some are recovering from surgery and they may be unable to perform the simple acts of daily living. They have a right to that kind of help with day-to-day living. That help is best given not by a doctor but a caring, capable and well-trained woman or man who visits their home to do those basic things necessary to allow them to be as independent as possible. These workers become a vital part of the lives of our elders and people of all ages who need support to live independently in our society.

The practitioners of this service are called personal support workers, or by their old name, homemakers, but I have heard them called friends by the many people they serve on a daily basis across Ontario.

Their work is not recognized by our federal government under the Canada Health Act, but that has not stopped our provincial government from making them an important part of the restructured health care services here in Ontario. Without any recognition or funding from Ottawa, the government of Ontario has increased significantly the level and quality of services so that today we provide the highest levels of access to home care in all of Canada. Like other provinces, we do not impose an income test, an asset test or a means test in order to access these services.

In fact, on July 13 this year, I flowed a further $83 million to expand access to visiting nursing therapists and personal support workers.

Today I am announcing details of plans to put more funding into the training of attendant and personal support workers contracted by community care access centres across this province, a plan to enhance the quality of these vital services.

One year ago, all 27 Ontario community colleges and 47 private vocational trade schools and several boards of education began offering a new personal support worker education program. This was an improvement on the several homemaker training programs that were taught across the province. Depending on where the course was taught you were given a different course of study, making it difficult to transfer your credits from one school to another.

To fix that previously confusing system, our government, with the help of the Ontario Community Support Association and the Ontario Home Health Care Providers Association, brought together educators, personal support workers and service providers to create one standard program. Graduates will be awarded a certificate of completion for personal attendant, and with further studies a certificate of completion for personal support worker.

We are now making this training available to existing workers, like the people I met with this morning. To do that we are increasing funding to this program by approximately 50% to $10 million for each of the next five years. We are paying for their tuition, their travel and their books as well as their salaries in order for these workers to enrol and take this program full-time across Ontario.

It's what we call a bridging program, and it's an initiative specifically designed to provide some 10,000 workers across this province with an opportunity to expand this important training. It allows them to provide a more broad range of services, handle more difficult and challenging situations, understand people with Alzheimer's and related dementia and offer the flexibility to meet the needs of individual consumers.

The president of the Ontario Community Support Association, Elizabeth Fulford, summed it up: "Well-prepared staff is the key to quality care. We are pleased that this government is committed to support the training for personal support workers."

These individuals are our partners in this journey towards a long-term-care service that offers more independence, personal choice and dignity. On behalf of a grateful province, especially the citizens they care for on a daily basis, I and members of this House wish to thank them and the thousands of fellow workers they represent for providing us with the kind of personal care and attention that affords the independence that is so valued by the people they serve.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): The people watching might have heard a hubbub in the House of maybe other conversations going on and people not necessarily paying attention to the honourable minister here, and this minister has something important to say today, the minister of part-time health care, maybe the wannabe Minister of Health, the minister of window dressing for the cuts to the hospital sector. We hear him say today that there's new money coming for certain kinds of workers. Let's look at what exactly this is about.

This new PSW, the only difference between that and the home care worker in the past is that it has a medical component to it; in other words, it touches on some of the things currently being done by RNs and RPNs, by highly trained and highly skilled nurses.

We're encouraged to see that workers can improve their skills, but the government has not matched this training initiative with any money to actually pay these workers. In the actual real world where patients get treated, we have agencies, some of which I believe are here today, that have to offer a base wage of $9.15 to $11 an hour. Why would a government train people to be more skilled and not give any more money to receive in more pay? They don't get any benefits, and a lot of agencies can't pay mileage.

When I attended the board of the Ontario Community Support Association, they told me they are having trouble attracting and keeping people. The result is because of a lack of government commitment to really good care for people.

We have a window-dressing announcement today with a major problem that the new graduates who are not working in the community are being gobbled up by nursing homes; they're not being available for home care. This does nothing to address that, because it doesn't deal with the salaries of those workers and, more importantly, the protections for the patients who need the help.

The PSW graduates are trickling into the community. Why would they work there, Minister, if they don't get better wages and if they don't get better working conditions? Your very privatization of these services, for-profit services being given an advantage in these areas, is taking away from their ability to provide for people. That is your move, Minister.

The existing workforce in homemaking can go back to school on a part-time basis. Just so you know how much of a public relations manoeuvre this is, to the very large number of concerned backbenchers in the government, each agency shares the government funding based on a percentage of the services they provide. Under the current system, that means it would take 35 years for the workers to actually be retrained. So we know how limited the commitment of this government is, because it has essentially reduced the amount of time it would take to get those people through the system to about 25 years.

So if you're in a bed right now, if you're at home waiting for homemaking services, like 2,000 people are in Kingston - which, incidentally, they're not going to get, because they've been cut off under this government's lack of funding and commitment to the Kingston CCAC - if you're waiting, though, for your homemaker to get these additional skills, you're going to wait a long, long time under this government.

We've got a make-work project from the Tory government for some people and a subsidy for for-profit agencies, but what does this really mean for people out there in the field? It means these new PSWs are going to be bumping nurses, RPNs and RNs, from roles they currently have. Instead of actually providing for new care, it is squeezing money out of the health care system by finding cheaper methods to perform roles that were once associated with nursing care. This minister should hang his head in shame for the reductions, for the deductions and for the discounting that he's doing on the health system in this province.

Minister, next time you stand up to give us an announcement, I want you to talk about the people whom you're supposed to be taking care of, like Ian Strathern in Niagara Falls. The Strathern family is paying $1,500 a week trying to get care that your ministry is denying them and is taking them to court to make sure they don't have. All across this province there are people, families, sadly paying the price for your smokescreen, for your being the minister of flim-flam, for your bringing down the standards.

Just like you'll take away chronic care beds and bring us long-term-care beds with one third the funding, you want to bring us people who would like to have jobs at a good rate of pay but you've created a competitive environment which drives their salaries down.

Now you have the audacity to say somehow trickling some training to them over a period of time will do anything except take away highly qualified nurses and give these people no real prospects in terms of how to improve a profession which, the one point we can agree with you on, is badly needed in Mike Harris's Ontario today because more and more people are being kicked out of hospitals quicker and sicker, and they need the support of good homemakers. What they don't need is the diffident interest of this government in providing anything but cut-rate health care.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This is the kind of announcement that makes it extremely difficult to keep a straight face, particularly with the minister responsible for long-term care, because although at the kernel there is some little grain of hope for people in this province that care in the home setting is going to be offered in a better way, most of this is sheer window dressing, self-advertisement and a very crass attempt on the part of the minister to try and paper over the fact that the polling his party has done shows exactly what we know, what everyone in the province of Ontario knows, that people are desperately concerned about the quality of care that is being offered to ill people at home.

Everyone in this province wants those who are able to be at home to be there to receive their care, but not at the cost of the quality of that care. The minister is quite right that some kind of training program, some kind of way for people to upgrade their skills, is a very important part of that. I want the minister to know that I support the idea that people who are working in the field be constantly upgraded. No one here disagrees with that. The concern we have is a legitimate one: Where are the standards of care? Where is the regulatory body that is going to ensure that the people who are offering this care are accountable for that care? None of that is here.

What we have is a laudable attempt to bring together those programs that have developed so that at least you know what the course content is, at least you know what education a person has if they get one or the other of these certificates. But once in the home, people are extremely vulnerable. They are vulnerable to caretakers who may try, because they want to help, because they are compassionate and caring, to take on tasks that belong to professions that have much longer training and much more technical expertise.

Frankly, it happens every day in this province that well-meaning, caring, compassionate long-term-care workers find themselves in a situation of having to choose whether to do something they technically are not supposed to do or seeing that person not receive those services.

We begged the government to put into effect our patients' bill of rights in the home so that we knew what the standards were, so that there was some regulatory mechanism for people to complain when those standards weren't met. This may be a small initial step towards improving some of the training for some of the people, but it certainly is not adequate to deal with the needs out there in our community.

The minister talks in glowing terms about having talked this morning with a few people who provide this care. Well, I've spoken to people providing this care all over the province, and I know how many of them are in tears daily because they know they are not able to provide the kind and the level of service their patients need, who go home drained, who wonder about whether they should continue in this field, who worry about whether they are actually collaborating in making people believe that the quality of care is better than it is.

The people who are doing this work are very remarkable people, but they are remarkably unsupported by either appropriate remuneration or benefits or timetables or security. Much better than speaking in glowing, wonderful terms about how marvellous these people are, you, Minister, have it within your power to ensure that standards are set for home care, to ensure that home care workers are regulated properly, to ensure that they see, in tangible terms, how grateful all of us are for the work they do day to day.

This is a tiny, little step and I would not want the minister to think it's not a good step, but I certainly can't let him fool the people out there into thinking this is somehow going to solve the quality-of-care problem in home care.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Our leader, Dalton McGuinty, is spending his afternoon visiting some of the Toronto area schools that are faced with closure. He's talking with students, staff and parents who are frightened about what will happen if their school is shut down and who are angry that your government is forcing this to happen.

Minister, do you think Givins Shaw school should shut down because it costs more than your formula allows, or will you provide some additional money so Givins Shaw can stay open?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): These community schools are very important. My first school back many years ago was a traditional, two-room brick schoolhouse. I and students in grades 1 to 4 occupied the one class; students in grades 5 to 8 occupied the other class. It was a very important school to the local community, and it remains an important school now. That school actually is 150 years old. These are the kind of schools that indeed are important to communities all across Ontario.

I have written to the various school boards across the province urging the school boards to look at other ways and means to deal with their schools rather than closing them down, and I've suggested to the school boards that they shouldn't close them, that they should look at other uses, sharing the facilities with the other school boards, sharing them with colleges or daycare centres or other community uses, and keep those schools open.

Mrs McLeod: The letter you sent out to school boards confirms the fact that all you're providing is $5.20 for 100 square feet of space for each school. That's it in elementary schools. Givins Shaw can't survive as a school if you're only going to give them $5.20 to maintain 100 square feet for each of its pupils.

Another of the schools, Minister, that Dalton's going to be visiting this afternoon is Ogden Junior Public School. Ogden's a fairly small school, but it is almost full. It's only 25 students short of being full even under your formula. The problem is your funding formula requires that every school be 100% full. Ryerson school, which is the nearest school to Ogden, can hold another 300 students, according to your numbers and your formula. So Ogden school is likely to close and the students are likely to be sent to Ryerson, and Ryerson will have 900 elementary school students crammed into the limited amount of space that your formula allows for each student.

Minister, I ask you today for a straight answer: Do you think that Ogden school is too small to stay open because it only has 300 students and do you think Ryerson will be too big if 900 students are crammed in there? Just answer.

Hon David Johnson: I just want to correct something that the member opposite has indicated, that there's not additional support for schools with specific circumstances. I am pleased to inform her that the basic funding formula does provide $40 million to support small schools across Ontario, and indeed the funding formula also contains some $90 million to support remote and rural schools.

Mrs McLeod: Let me correct you. Ogden school in Toronto can't possibly qualify for a small school factor, because it says here it has to be more than 80 kilometres from all other elementary schools before it can even qualify. I don't think that's in the rules for Ogden school to stay open. My question is still, Minister, do you think the small Ogden school should close and the students should be rammed into Ryerson?

Another school that Dalton's visiting is St Raymond separate school. St Raymond is a large physical building - get the picture - that has 320 students in it. Your formula says you should have 700 students in St Raymond school, because your formula doesn't allow St Raymond to have an art room or a social science room or a family studies room. You think there should be full-time classes with 25 students in every one of those rooms. Any actual vacant classrooms in St Raymond are being well used by daycare students, by adults in continuing education classes, by ESL classes.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you don't count any of that. Will you change your rigid rules, change your inflexible funding formula so that community uses are recognized in a school like -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: What I was trying to imply is that there are different circumstances right across the province and there are different amounts of money that support different circumstances. The two schools -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The Toronto schools mentioned will certainly get their share and more of the language grant and the learning opportunities grant. But the Toronto board has a choice. They can pursue the Nyberg list of closing schools or they have another choice. Their other choice is to reduce their administrative costs, their other choice is to reduce the costs it takes them to run the schools, which is far beyond the provincial average, and their other choice is to look at other uses to fill those community schools. I say the Toronto board, in pursuing the Nyberg list to close schools, has made the wrong choice.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the Provincial Auditor's report that was issued today, quite a condemning report, I might add. I want to take one specific aspect of it. The auditor has pointed out what can only be regarded as the sweetheart of all sweetheart consulting deals. The minister will be familiar with the fact that Andersen Consulting was awarded a contract of $180 million by the government. Here's what the auditor said about $180 million:

"They found the ministry could not demonstrate that it selected the most cost-effective proposal or that the agreement would result in value for money for the taxpayer. The ministry could not provide the basis for paying $180 million. A starting point for measuring the benefits had not been adequately established.

It goes on to say that to get money into the consultant's hands by March 31, 1998, the consultant was paid $15.5 million for $2.5 million worth of work.

It is a boondoggle. My question to you is this, Minister: How could you approve, on behalf of the taxpayers, this sweetheart deal for Andersen Consulting?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I refer this question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, in answer to the honourable member's question, I'd like to say that as a taxpayer I welcome the recommendations of the auditor and the job that he does.

Laughter.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They may find that humorous. I think someone watching over the taxpayers' money is an excellent -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's interesting that the opposition over there seems to think it's humorous that a check and balance to protect taxpayers is somehow worthy of derision.

The second point I would like to make is that reform of the information technology that supports delivery of the welfare system is extremely vital. This is an old system. It's been tinkered with for over 30 years. It's in danger of crashing. There are over a million people who depend on that system to give them their benefits when they need them. So the reform of this system was extremely important. Actually it was the previous government, the NDP, that recognized that reform was beyond the ability of the ministry to do it, so we sought expert advice.

As for the specific recommendations of the auditor, I'm very concerned. The mismanagement of this program - this project has been mismanaged - is unacceptable. It should have been handled better and I've directed the deputy to take the necessary steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Mr Phillips: To get back to mismanagement, I think the deputy may have to go to the cabinet table because that's who signed the deal. It was the cabinet that signed the deal.

I just want to say to the minister, Andersen Consulting made you look like a fool. They estimated the cost of this project at $50 million to $70 million, maximum. You went out and signed a contract for $180 million. You look like a fool on it. They then increased their rates. By the way, this contract was signed 18 months after you came into office. It wasn't something done the next day; it was signed in 1997. They estimated the cost at $50 million to $70 million; you gave them $180 million. They estimated their fees. Then they increased their fees since they signed the contract by 63% and you approved that.

You're paying clerks on this project more than you're paying the deputy minister on the project. I repeat, you look like a fool on this.

Are you prepared now to renegotiate this contract and get the taxpayers out from under a burden that you put them under?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd like to remind the honourable member that one of the values of this particular kind of procurement process is that the risk is borne by the private sector partner. They pay the upfront cost, not the taxpayer. They get paid -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said previously, they are bearing the costs of this program. They only get paid if there are savings. That's a very important protection for the taxpayers. The other thing the honourable member isn't mentioning is that there is a cap on this. They only get paid if there are savings up to a maximum amount.

But as I have also said, the management of this project was unacceptable. We have a new team in place. There are new rules, tighter rules, to verify the cost. We have directed that Andersen renegotiate the rates to ensure that we are indeed getting the best value for money for the taxpayer.

I would also like to repeat that the reform of this technology is extremely important. If the honourable members would like to -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Phillips: The tragedy is that there is not a cap on the $180 million. They can actually get more than $180 million. There is not a cap on the $180 million, tragically. If you want to have almost an SCTV skit on how not to engage a consultant, it would be this.

Again I say to the minister, one of the key criteria for selecting these people was the people involved in it, and then over half of them left the project. They estimated the cost at $70 million. You said: "We'll be pretty tough with you. We'll only give you $180 million and a little bit more." Believe me, you look like fools on this, and it was done 18 months into the government.

Will you undertake today to go to the cabinet and say: "Listen, somebody here goofed; the cabinet goofed. We are going back to Andersen Consulting and on behalf of the taxpayers we are going to get on our knees and say, `We're sorry we signed this contract; will you let us off the hook so the taxpayers aren't embarrassed by this government?'"

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd like to remind the honourable member it was an open bidding process that selected this particular partner.

The second point -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member seems to think that somehow or other that system that over a million people depend on should have been allowed to decay, as they allowed it to decay. If they think allowing that system to sit there until it crashes and a million people in need can't get the cheques they need when they need them, they should say so. We knew reform was needed. We knew the ministry did not have the expertise to do that reform on its own. That's why we went out and got expert opinion to do that.

I repeat: Only if savings are achieved does the company get paid. Secondly, the mismanagement of this project is unacceptable. That's why we have taken steps to fix it, so it will not happen again.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. This corporate boondoggle is so good I have to get in on it too.

We raised this issue with your government over a year ago.

We pointed out that Andersen Consulting has a terrible record and the Provincial Auditor has confirmed today that this is an all-time corporate welfare boondoggle, because the Provincial Auditor confirms that you have paid Andersen $15.5 million, even when their costs are only $13.1 million; that Andersen has gotten more than 90% of the so-called savings from social assistance, even though they have had virtually nothing to do with it; that you have paid them $1.25 million in expenses without any receipts; and that you're going to keep on paying them to the tune of $180 million, even though the Provincial Auditor found no basis for the fee.

Minister, you're good at attacking poor people, unemployed people. Will you do the taxpayers a favour and get rid of this corporate boondoggle?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member well knows that that computer technology is in serious danger of crashing. The risk was so high that his government started the process to bring in a private sector partner to try and fix the technology.

The agreement is very clear. Andersen only gets paid if there are savings, and it was very clear on that, because they are paying the costs of this program, as they should. They're bearing the risk. If there are savings, they then get paid up to a cap, so it was very clear.

We would also like to say that because of the policy changes and the legislation changes and our welfare reforms like Ontario Works, our work-for-welfare program, we have already saved the taxpayers $2.8 billion. We are continuing to move forward with our welfare reforms because, one, we know we've got to get people off welfare and, two, we know that the technology that supports that program has to work.

Mr Hampton: The minister tries to avoid the question. The question here is about getting Andersen off the corporate welfare. No one else designed this boondoggle. Your government, and your government alone, has designed this boondoggle.

It gets even worse. Even more incredible, whenever Andersen Consulting wants, they can raise their hourly rates that they charge the taxpayers of Ontario and you, the government, can't do anything about it, and so Andersen has. They've raised their rates already by 63% from the original proposal. They're now charging $575 an hour, six times higher than anybody in your ministry gets paid on an hourly basis. The original corporate welfare rate was bad enough, $300 an hour. It is demonstrated by the auditor that they are not saving you any money in social assistance, that those savings are happening because of other things.

My question to you, Minister: Will you end this corporate boondoggle?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would, with respect, disagree with the honourable member. The Andersen project has saved the taxpayers money. If it hadn't, they wouldn't have been paid one red cent, but because there have been savings and there will continue to be savings to the taxpayers, that's how they get paid and that's where they get paid.

As I have also indicated here in the Legislature, we are having the rates renegotiated. I have also said and will say again because I believe it very firmly, this project was mismanaged. It should have been done better. One of the reasons the auditor had some difficulty assessing those costs was that there needed to be a better process in place.

I repeat, there is a new team, there are new rules, they're reporting on a more regular basis to senior management to make sure that this very important reform is managed in a way that better protects the taxpayers and also moves forward with a reform that will protect those million people out there who depend on the system from being left high and dry.

Mr Hampton: The minister tries very hard to ignore exactly what the auditor has said. He said there is no connection between any so-called savings in social assistance and anything that Andersen has done. That's the essence of his argument.

Further, we raised this issue over a year ago. We told you: "Why don't you go look at the auditor's report from New Brunswick where they say the McKenna government has quietly been paying Andersen Consulting over $1 million for services they haven't performed." Or even the good old boys down in Texas, the Texas auditor's report says: "Originally, Arthur Andersen committed to an $11-million contract. It ballooned to $75 million." That was all there. You could have seen that.

Here's the problem. They're going to continue to milk Ontario taxpayers for a further $165 million at least, unless you do something. Minister, I'm going to ask you for the third time: Will you end this rip-off of Ontario taxpayers? Will you end this corporate welfare boondoggle for your corporate friends?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Will we end a reform that is going to protect a million people out there who depend on that technology? Absolutely not. Payments are only made under this agreement if there are savings. I think the honourable members recognize that.

Second, we are not backing away from a reform initiative that desperately needs to be done. We recognized and we knew that the ministry did not have the expertise that was required. We put out an open bidding process. We consulted with jurisdictions, quite frankly, around the world that have used this particular company. They are producing savings for us. That is what they are supposed to be doing. We will not back away from that reform.

In terms of better management for this program, absolutely: It was mismanaged, it is unacceptable, and that's why we've put changes in place. I have directed the deputy to put changes in place that will fix that mismanagement so that we can ensure that the taxpayers are indeed protected and that, again, the auditor has an appropriate documentation trail so he can make an assessment and a judgment about what is happening.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education. Last week the Minister of Education made an admission. He admitted that across Ontario under his new funding formula, funding for school operations and maintenance has been cut by 1.5%. It's time to get some more figures from the minister today.

Your government hired the firm of Ernst and Young to write a report on school board spending. They came up with the concept of the median board, that board that was halfway down the list when you went from the biggest boards to the smallest boards. One half were above this median board, one half below. Will you confirm that in your new funding formula most of the grant categories are based on expenditures by your new statistical invention, the so-called median board?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What I will confirm is that this government is intent on improving the quality of education in the province of Ontario. We're intent on focusing the resources that are available into the classroom, increasing funds available for teachers, for textbooks, for supplies, for all of the essentials within the classroom.

Then I'll confirm that outside of the classroom, in order that we have those monies to invest in the classroom to improve the quality of education, I will confirm that we are expecting reductions in the non-classroom activities, in the administration, in the bureaucracy.

The member opposite has questioned about the Provincial Auditor. The Provincial Auditor has raised the issue of the running of the schools. The Provincial Auditor believes the schools can be run more efficiently and effectively. I don't think reducing operations by 1.5% is asking too much efficiency of the school boards across Ontario.

Mr Hampton: The minister tried very hard not to answer the question, but unfortunately one of his officials did answer this question under oath in the Bill 160 court case. The ministry official admitted under cross-examination that your funding formula uses norms based on this so-called median board - this invention - as a tool "for driving down funded spending." That's what he said.

Minister, since we now know that's the truth, will you confirm that one half of the school boards that existed in 1997 - the one half below this so-called median board - actually represented only 11% of Ontario's student population?

Hon David Johnson: I will confirm that there are many large boards and small boards both above and beyond the median line. The Hamilton board, for example, can operate at about $4 in terms of their operations,

whereas the Toronto board is operating at about $2.50 above that.

The question is: If some large urban boards, for example, can be efficient, can be effective - and the auditor believes that school boards should be asked to be more efficient and effective - then why is it a crime to ask school boards across Ontario to be more efficient and effective in the way they run schools and to take that money and invest it in the classroom, in textbooks, in supplies, in computers and in teachers in the classroom? I think we've put the focus exactly where it should be: on quality in the education system.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you can repeat that rhetoric all you want; none of the people across Ontario believe it. They know your real agenda is getting the money out of the schools to finance your income tax scheme, and that's what's happening. When you follow the funding formula you see that, because the reality regarding this so-called median board you invented is that only 11% of the students are above that median figure; 89% are on the wrong end. What it means is that, by inventing that median figure, you are actually cutting the investment in the education of 89% of the students in this province.

That's your mathematical wizardry. You invented this phony concept, and 89% of the students in this province are experiencing a cut in operational school funding because of it. Minister, will you confirm that 11% of students are at one end of this median and 89% are at the other?

Hon David Johnson: I'll confirm a couple of things. I'll confirm that 100% of the students in Ontario will see more monies into the classroom across the province, and that's exactly where the money should be spent.

I'll also confirm that there will be more money spent this year in the education system across the province than there was last year or the years before. Over $15 billion will be spent on the elementary and secondary system in Ontario. The taxpayers deserve good value for that money. The taxpayers, parents, teachers and students want to see those resources focused in the classroom, and that's exactly what we're doing.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, your real agenda in school closures is starting to come through clear, day after day. In my own community, potentially up to 40 schools are on the cutting block, and because the board of education had the guts to say no to you and your stupid formula, you are punishing them to the tune of $3 million a year right now, which is going to cost students in the community dearly. But, Minister, what is more disturbing is now what is clear is the agenda of your ministry, of your government, of yourself in regard to this.

You're insensitive to community schools, you are uncaring about community schools and you simply show a lack of compassion to those schools.

Let me read what your member for Hamilton Mountain, Trevor Pettit, said to the editorial board about a school in his own riding: "To suggest that Thornbrae school is the heart of the community is a joke. A lot of the people who show up once you start hearing about...school closing...you will never see at a parents' council, a fundraiser, hot dog day or any other function that the school ever has." This is one of your backbenchers.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question?

Mr Agostino: Minister, why do you allow your government and your backbenchers to attack neighbourhood schools, the kids, the parents and the teachers in those schools -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The priority of this government is to improve the education system. The priority of this government is to invest in the classroom, in teachers, in textbooks. That's why we instituted the $100-million fund to purchase textbooks for the elementary students, for the kindergarten students, to purchase science equipment, the computer software that the kids need in the classroom.

That's why we have reduced the funding outside of the classroom in administration and non-classroom activities and put that money into the classroom, because we believe that our children in the province deserve a better-quality education system and that each and every child deserves to have the same opportunity of an excellent education system right across the province. That's what we're doing. That's what our policies are directing us to do in how to invest in the education system.

Mr Agostino: Your lack of an answer and the fact that you refuse to answer the question is clear: You support that statement, you support the attack on community schools and you support the attack on those students and those teachers, or you now would have taken your member to task, which you failed to do.

It gets better. Clearly, you don't give a darn about how these school closures as a result of your stupid funding formula are affecting communities. It gets better. You want full control of education, of funding, but you don't want any of the responsibilities. The quotes get better. Let me read you another brainwave in the same interview with the editorial board of the Spectator. Your member from Hamilton Mountain, Trevor Pettit, says: "Maybe the next step is to eliminate the boards. That's my personal opinion. The boards have to go." That is the view of your member for Hamilton Mountain.

Not only do you attack the students, the neighbourhood schools, the parents and the teachers, now it's the school boards.

Minister, answer directly: Do you support the attack on neighbourhood schools and do you agree with the statement by your member for Hamilton Mountain that your next step is to eliminate school boards across Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: I have indicated before that I and the members on this side of the House believe that neighbourhood schools are most essential and should be supported. In confirmation of that, I have written to the school board chairs across the province suggesting ways and means they should look at, initiatives they should pursue to bring community activities within their schools to help share in the responsibilities of the schools and to keep the schools open. I've written to them asking them to pursue these various ideas such as daycare, such as looking at colleges.

I will say, since the member for Hamilton East has asked about his particular schools, that in terms of the monies we're making available for the operation of the schools, in the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon David Johnson: - there is more money, some 18% more, and in the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board some 3% more to help those two boards, more money to maintain -

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Education again: We come now to the issue of school closings. Everyone knows that your funding formula is the problem here, but we need to get to the heart of it.

You say that the Toronto District School Board would not have to close schools if only they acted like the Catholic board. The Catholic board, which is much smaller than the Toronto District School Board, has to close 29 schools as well. How does acting like the Catholic board save schools from closure? They're different in size. The Catholic board will have to close 29. The much larger Toronto District School Board, using the same formula, is going to have to close a lot of schools as well. Can you explain how the Catholic board is somehow going to save a lot of schools from closure across the province and in Toronto?

Hon Mr Johnson: No school board has to close schools. These are decisions that boards are making whether it's appropriate or not appropriate. When the members of the NDP were in power, school boards chose to close over 100 schools across Ontario. These are decisions that each individual board is making in the context, I might say, of the over $15 billion that we're providing to the schools.

Specifically in the custodial and maintenance area, if the Toronto public school board pursued the same methods of efficiency that the Catholic school board has, based on a proportion, they would save almost $80 million a year, if they pursued the same techniques as the Catholic board. That would go a long way to reducing the Nyberg list of school closures.

Mr Hampton: When the minister says, "If the Toronto board followed the Catholic board they might be able to save some money," what he leaves out is that they'd still have to close over 100 schools. That's the nature of this. No matter how you try to slide it by people, your funding formula is going to close hundreds of schools across this province.

Minister, the other rhetoric you're spouting out there is that the Toronto board should sell off any surplus schools that they're using for administrative purposes now. But here's the problem: When we read your Bill 160 and the regulations under Bill 160, if they close those buildings, your Bill 160 says they can't use any of that money for operating funds; they can only use it for the construction of new schools or the repair of old schools. Who is right? Your law, Bill 160, and the regulations, or this nonsense rhetoric that you've been spewing across the province?

Hon David Johnson: Just a couple of relevant facts: The Toronto school board already has some 80 schools apparently that they no longer use for public school purposes. Perhaps they should be looking at them. They could reduce their administration space. There were seven major administration buildings from the previous seven boards. How many major administration buildings do they have today, 10 months after amalgamation? They still have the seven major buildings today. Could they not reduce that space and save money? Sure they could. Could they not have more community uses within their schools, as I've encouraged them to do?

On the sale of property, the Toronto school board is free to sell their property, keep the money and use the money to build new facilities that they may need, new additions to school space, new schools, major renovations. These are the capital programs that they're going to need to do and they have -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for my honourable friend the Minister of Education. I want to start by thanking him for the terrific job he's doing.

In my area there are about a dozen schools identified for possible closure by local school boards. Parents are very concerned over the possibility that these small-town schools, some of which -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Hamilton Centre and Lake Nipigon, come to order, please.

Mr Arnott: - are full to capacity, may be closed by as early as next June. As a parent, I can relate to these concerns. Some school board officials are playing politics and blaming their proposal to close schools on the province's new funding formula for education.

It's my understanding that December 31 is the date which has been established for school boards to submit their proposals regarding their plans for the use of their schools. I also understand that school boards are required to undertake meaningful consultations with parents before they close any schools. Will the minister advise me what I can tell the residents of my area to reassure them about the future of our rural schools, and could the minister explain the purpose of the year-end deadline?

Hon David Johnson: I'm pleased to respond that, yes, the community consultations are required. It's a requirement that we placed on boards. In terms of the December 31 deadline, it's a date up to which the boards across Ontario may reduce their space if they choose to and be eligible for more capital monies to assist in future construction.

But I will say in the case of my colleague that the boards he represents, the Upper Grand, the Wellington Catholic, the Waterloo region and the Waterloo Catholic, are all eligible for new pupil places, all will receive capital monies, and those capital monies will support some $28 million worth of construction in those boards in the first year, and in the third year an additional $27 million worth of construction, and that will support accommodation for over 5,000 pupils in those four boards.

Mr Arnott: I appreciate the financial commitment that the minister has made to ensure that students in Wellington and Waterloo region have a fair and equal opportunity for a high-quality education, irrespective of where they live. The school boards in my area have yet to make a compelling case that there is an immediate need to close schools. I'm disappointed that instead of being prepared to work with me to find a local solution, some school board officials have instead blamed the government, with the result being a proliferation of fear and rumours sweeping through our schools and our communities.

I think there is still time for our area boards to change their course and keep schools open. For example, the Avon Maitland and Thames Valley public boards each had plans to close a significant number of schools. However, after re-evaluating the situation and after seeking input from parents, these boards cancelled their plans.

Our rural and small-town schools have unique characteristics which require recognition in the funding formula. My question is this: Is the government providing sufficient funding to the school boards in my area to keep the schools open and properly maintained, and do the boards have other options?

Hon David Johnson: I thank the member for Wellington for his question and I assure him that the agenda of the government is to improve the quality of education in Ontario and to ensure that each and every child has a fair and equal opportunity at that higher-quality education right across the province.

In terms of the funding for the four boards that the member for Wellington represents, I will say that each and every one of those boards will receive more monies in the classroom. On this particular issue, the issue of the operation of the schools, three of the four boards will receive additional monies. The total flow of additional monies into those four boards altogether exceeds $6 million, over $6 million of additional operation monies into those boards, because those boards have been frugal in the past. It's my hope that they will continue in that vein and serve the students well, with our higher quality of education.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Long-Term Care. He will recall that Dalton McGuinty and I have raised the situation facing Ian Strathern of Niagara Falls. As a result of an athletic accident, Ian is a life-support-ventilated quadriplegic. He must rely upon health care givers 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Strathern family must pay $1,500 per week for nursing care for Ian.

David Strathern approached Premier Harris at a Conservative fundraiser in St Catharines on May 7 of this year and the Premier promised he would not rest until he had helped Ian. All of us have been very patient waiting for the Premier to keep his promise to Ian Strathern. Instead, the Mike Harris government has embarked upon a legal fight against the Strathern family.

Minister, at a time when the Mike Harris government is embarking upon yet another advertising campaign, this time a $4-million television advertising campaign, why is it that your government is denying Ian Strathern the home care he so desperately needs?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I want to thank the member for the question. He has raised it in this House on a previous occasion, as he indicated. I want to share with the member opposite the fact that we had indicated at that time and will again indicate today that this province, like all provinces in this country, provides a full range of support services to families who have met with these kinds of tragic accidents.

Unfortunately, none of these services are covered under the Canada Health Act and none of them are recognized by the federal government in terms of funding eligibility, so provinces are left on their own to work out the very best, most sensitive set of options and programs available to individuals.

There are several options that have been offered to this family and to the thousands of other Ontarians in similar circumstances. In the supplementary, I'll be pleased to address the issues you're raising about the appeal.

Mr Bradley: Apparently the Harris government has $4 million for its new health care commercials but not enough money to meet Ian's needs. Not only has the Premier not fulfilled his promise to Ian; his government has hired a downtown Toronto law firm to try to stop Ian from even having the opportunity to appeal his case to the Health Services Appeal Board.

Ian's family has to pay $1,500 a week, $6,000 a month, for his health care. Now the family has to hire a lawyer to defend Ian against the government-paid lawyer just to fight for the chance to appeal to the Health Services Appeal Board. This is totally bizarre.

You've sicced the legal hounds on the Strathern family, you've forced them to pay $1,500 a week for home care, you've forced them to pay for a lawyer, yet you are paying big bucks for a lawyer, you are spending $4 million on a TV advertising campaign, and the Strathern family heads for potential personal bankruptcy.

Minister, will you call off the legal hounds? Will you at least allow the Stratherns to appeal, or better yet, will you finally provide the care that Ian Strathern needs and deserves?

Hon Mr Jackson: First of all, I want to share with the member opposite that the issues under appeal are not an appealable item under the current legislation. That has been shared with both legal parties, with the family, and has been openly shared in this House. The family does have the right to proceed on any legal matter, as they proceed on any matters that might be relevant to the accident itself and potential liabilities and legalities that may flow from that. The government isn't stopping them from that process.

Rather, I want to share with the member once again that there are three or four ways in which we can assist families to provide as much care as possible, but there are thousands of people in this province who have specifically said that they would like to hire four or five people to work full-time as their yearly occupation -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Jackson: - to live aside individuals. There are thousands of them in this province. I ask the honourable member, if he as committed in his question, is his leader -

The Speaker: Thank you.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce, in the Speaker's gallery, a group of interns from Ottawa who have joined us today for question period. I'd like to welcome them, too.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Today we have with us the mayor of the largest municipality in the great riding of Lake Nipigon, Her Worship Mayor Pat Richardson. As her representative, I am simply asking for your help.

In 1997, municipalities in the province of Ontario were advised to do more with less, a situation that the township of Marathon is most familiar with. They've been doing more with less since 1992. They've cut services, increased water rates, trimmed staff positions, increased the paper user garbage program etc.

Alice, the sky is about to fall because a few weeks back the largest employer, James River, has received through the courtesy of the Ontario Municipal Board a tax rebate. They won their assessment appeal. It means $1.607 million -

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

Mr Pouliot: The total revenue -

The Speaker: That's it. You can get a supplementary.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I am well aware of the case of which he speaks. As a matter of fact, Her Worship and others from Marathon have been talking to not only representatives from the Ministry of Finance but the Ministry of Education. I have talked to my colleague the Minister of Education this morning, as a matter of fact, and I don't see any reason why the province should deny the request that Marathon has made for $721,000 in education taxes of the $1.6 million, and I am willing to work with the municipality of Marathon to see what we can do about the balance.

Interjection: You're halfway home, Gilles, don't blow it.

Mr Pouliot: Don't worry. Mr Speaker, I want to thank the ministry. This is straightforward, it's most appreciated, most welcome. But Minister, since I have already prepared a supplementary, I want to ask it.

You will realize the high debt load: 1997 average in Ontario, $847 per household; in Marathon, it's $2,453. Reserves: across the province, $1,500; $373 for Marathon. Ours are special situations.

Minister, will you guarantee that the very good response to the township of Marathon could perhaps, because everyone is appealing, apply to sister municipalities spread over the great riding of Lake Nipigon? You've already made that commitment.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, was that a hypothetical question? Really, the municipality of Marathon does find itself in a very unique circumstance. Any time a municipality loses well over 25% of its tax base, approaching 30% of its entire tax base, it is indeed a very serious and crucial situation. I believe that we as provincial representatives have the responsibility to alleviate that as much as we can.

AMATEUR SPORT

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As a former amateur sports coach and referee, and in fact somewhat of an athlete before taking this job, I take a great interest in amateur sports. Canada has a well-recognized tradition, both nationally and internationally, for its amateur sport. Randy Burridge and Stan Druhlia are two young men I grew up with who made the big leagues in the NHL.

One thinks of young Matt Desrosiers, a star athlete from Fort Erie who is on a full scholarship at a division one university, and hopefully as well joining his colleagues in the NHL some day. This attests to the strength and the capacity of Ontario's amateur sports sector. We have a high calibre of athlete and I would say we would likely have a bright future in amateur in Ontario. My question to the minister is, could she apprise the House of recent developments in amateur sport in the province.

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I want to thank the member for Niagara South for the question because I'm certainly pleased to report that the provincial strategy for amateur sport is moving forward. The cornerstone of the government's strategy is to build a strong and self-reliant amateur sports strategy. We support amateur sport here in Ontario.

I want to bring to the attention of members in the House a brand new sport organization, the Sport Alliance of Ontario. Members of the board are sitting in the gallery today. They are going to be speaking with one voice for the sport organizations in Ontario. In fact they will ensure that our 82 provincial sport organizations move into the millennium totally equipped and ready to host, I hope, the Olympic Games in 2008. So things are looking up.

Interjection.

Mr Hudak: The member for Niagara Falls brings up a supplementary. I'm curious about the future of amateur sports in Ontario, especially if I consider making a comeback someday.

Hon Ms Bassett: I want to say to the member for Niagara South that the future looks bright for amateur sport in Ontario. Together with the Sport Alliance of Ontario - the SAO - we are focusing on five priorities that include increasing participation among children and youth; supporting strong, self-reliant amateur sport organizations; developing athletes from the novice to national level; developing a safe and accessible environment; and lastly, developing leaders in amateur sport.

In addition the SAO will focus on helping establish new partnerships with the private sector, which is so important for the vitality of sport and recreation in the province. So I hope the members in the House wish the SAO well.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I've been working with George Smitherman, community activist, regarding day cares in his particular community. This petition is from the Lord Dufferin Community Day Care centre and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas providing day care spaces is critical for the families in Toronto that need access to them; and

"Whereas the well-being of children should not be sacrificed to tax cuts; and

"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the budgets for the Toronto school boards; and

"Whereas under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160 there is no flexibility for boards to make up for the cuts; and

"Whereas day care spaces in schools are now threatened by these cuts with the prospect of full-cost recovery arrangements with day care centres and the threat of school closures;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 160 immediately, and further

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate our community day cares; and

"Further

be it resolved that the Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to local school boards who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."

I wholeheartedly agree and affix my signature.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am pleased to present a petition from about 400 residents of Niagara South dealing with fair treatment of all hepatitis C victims. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many Ontarians have been infected with the hepatitis C virus as a result of transfusions using contaminated blood; and

"Whereas the current compensation package only provides funding for those people infected between the years 1986 to 1990; and

"Whereas in Canada there are at least 20,000 surviving victims who were infected with hepatitis C before 1986, who placed their faith in the blood system and are now suffering;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario on behalf of the victims and their families to support the Ontario government's call for a compensation package for Ontarians who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986, and we further petition the Legislature of Ontario that pending a resolution of the federal liability for the contaminated blood problem, Ontario agree in the interim that such new package be funded by Ontario and the federal government on the same basis as the federal-provincial agreement covering 1986-90."

They support Ontario's leadership on this serious issue and -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Petition.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature.

"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;

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA (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 Ministry 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 beat prostate cancer."

Because I am in support, I affix my signature to this petition.

TAXATION

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has cut the provincial income tax rate by 30%, as promised in the last provincial election; and

"Whereas a family of four earning $60,000 a year will get a tax cut worth $1,210 in provincial income taxes this year and $1,385 next year; and

"Whereas 90% of Ontario taxpayers will see a cut of 30% or more; and

"Whereas the 30% income tax cut will result in a combined tax savings of $147.5 million for the people of the Niagara region; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government's commitment to lower commercial and industrial tax rates to the provincial average over the next eight years means that industries in the Niagara region will save $12.4 million over this period; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has cut taxes 66 times since coming to office; and

"Whereas the best job creation program is a tax cut; and

"Whereas these tax cuts have encouraged the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue to lower taxes in order to encourage the creation of new jobs and to leave more money in the pockets of Ontario taxpayers."

I'll affix my signature as I'm in full agreement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Petitions? Member for Yorkview.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have 40 petitions addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas your tax reform has created innumerable and gigantic problems;

"Whereas your tax reform will displace pensioners, single wage earners and tenants;

"Whereas many business owners can no longer afford to pay from 10% to 500% increases;

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Finance and even the Premier said that indeed `taxes should come down by at least 10%;'

"Therefore, we ask the Premier and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to alleviate the burden of your tax reform and offer assistance and reduce taxes."

I concur and I will sign my signature to it.

PARKING FEES

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition presented to me by a number of employees at the Newmarket courthouse and land registry office. I've discussed the matter with the Attorney General, and I wish to read this petition into the record today.

"The undersigned wish to express our outrage at the proposed imposition of a monthly parking fee for employees at the Newmarket courthouse. There is no functional need for paid parking at this courthouse. There is never a shortage of parking space. There is no indication of misuse of the parking by individuals who are not attending the courthouse. Clearly, the intention of paid parking is to generate revenue for the government.

"We refuse to accept what amounts to a significant wage decrease. This will constitute a significant hardship for many of the undersigned employees and users of the courthouse."

I affix my signature to this.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parents against parents and communities against communities in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

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

"That we demand that Mike Harris stop closing local schools."

I have attached my signature to this.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition here today that I'm presenting on behalf of the member for Markham, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Read it, then.

Mr Newman: I'm just starting to read it, Mr Speaker. It's sent to him by Anna Jennings, RN. She's the administrator at Markhaven Inc.

The Speaker: Read it.

Mr Newman: It has to do with palliative care, and I'm presenting it on his behalf today.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. Thank you. I apologize.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition regarding red light cameras at intersections. It reads:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature hereto.

VANDALISM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a very unusual petition. With your permission I will read it into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"This petition is put in writing, outlining our fears so that when an incident occurs there is a record.

"We are the residents 61 Ash Street, Port Perry, a seniors residence, situated behind the burned-out Catholic church and Immaculate Conception School. We border Poplar Park.

"Several cars have been vandalized, a glass bottle containing gasoline with a rag stopper found by a car, and several Canadian flags have been stolen. These are some of our concerns.

"In the park, liquor parties go on. They leave bottles and we hear the noise at all hours. This park has a bylaw posted closing at 10 pm, which is never enforced.

"As of late, on a Tuesday night, a group of younger children (10 to 14 years), including three older girls wearing similar jackets, have been seen taunting, mooning and racing between the cars in the private parking lot. We feel intimidated as this group is becoming bolder, ie, pushing the automatic access button on our front door. This went on from dusk until 9:30 pm. Calling out to them and asking them to leave results in abusive language and gestures etc. Nobody in this building does anything to provoke these kids.

"Residents in the building are intimidated. They are afraid the kids will take revenge on their cars, so they are reluctant to call the police. By the same token, the police and council need documentation for any resolution.

"Mr Carruthers has listened, knows there is a problem, and will work to resolve it. The burning of the church, with the fire marshal's report pending, makes residents very uneasy. To go to bed with keys, purse and jacket handy is not the way to spend our senior years. We are intimidated and they know it."

This was sent, Mr Speaker, with your permission, to the mayor, to myself and to other councillors on behalf of Cecilia Ryan."

SCHOOL CLOSURES

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

"Whereas due to the Harris funding cuts to education district school boards across Ontario are being forced to consider the closing of both elementary and high schools, both public and Catholic high schools, all across Ontario before next September; and

"Whereas the parents of the people in these schools do not want their schools closed, because they are operating at full capacity, and fear the further chaos and crisis the Harris government is imposing on the education of their children will hurt their children's education; and

"Whereas there is apprehension and turmoil in our communities due to the government rules which determine that those students will have to find new schools to go to by next September;

"Now, therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We call upon the Minister of Education, who has the primary responsibility for providing a quality education for each and every student in Ontario, to:

"1. Listen to the views being expressed by the parents, teachers and students of these affected schools;

"2. Recognize the fundamental importance of our local schools to our neighbourhood and to our community; and

"3. Live up to its commitment to provide adequate funding for the important and essential components of a good education and not allow the massive closings of these schools all across Ontario."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is for the government of Ontario about the Hotel Dieu Hospital.

"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; and

"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; and

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

"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; and

"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;

"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 am in complete agreement with this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NORTHERN SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES PUBLICS DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Spina, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 12,

An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery / Projet de loi 12, Loi visant à offrir aux résidents du Nord plus de choix et de souplesse dans la mise en place de mécanismes de prestation des services qui tiennent compte de la situation unique du Nord de l'Ontario et à permettre l'accroissement de l'efficience et de la responsabilité en ce qui concerne la prestation des services à l'échelle régionale.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I am pleased today to lead the debate on this third reading of Bill 12, the Northern Services Improvement Act. First, I thank everyone who has been involved with this important piece of legislation, important for many of our northern Ontario residents.

Today we take another step down the legislative road that will give northern municipalities an optional governance tool that will allow them to deliver better and more efficient services at a lower cost to taxpayers.

My colleague Chris Hodgson, the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Northern Development and Mines, reintroduced the Northern Services Improvement Act earlier this session, meeting this government's commitment to help northerners help themselves.

While we are bringing meaningful change to the way local services will be delivered in the future, we're doing it with legislation that reflects the ideas and recommendations of northerners. In crafting and developing this Northern Services Improvement Act, we consulted extensively with our northern partners. We met with both opposition parties more than a year ago.

We met with umbrella associations - the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, FONOM, and the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, NOMA - and in the formative stages we were involved in an ongoing dialogue with a group called Team North, northern representatives who were specifically called together to consult on this legislation. They ranged from people from North Bay to Kenora. We hosted delegations from individual communities during the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's annual meeting and met with representatives of many unorganized communities as well.

When Bill 12 was referred to the general government committee for public hearings, we listened to many presenters in Kenora, Thunder Bay, the Soo and Timmins. We listened and we learned. I particularly thank members of the opposition and the third party for their diligent and at times spirited participation in those hearings and the subsequent clause-by-clause review, particularly the member for Cochrane South, who was very passionate about getting what we felt was the best bill possible for the people of northern Ontario. We debated numerous proposed amendments and adopted several, and by doing so we feel that we've made a good bill better.

Bill 12's excellence, more than all else, I think speaks to the insight, guidance and tenacity of our municipal leaders in the north in preparing and moving this bill along. In fact, the bill was modelled very much along the lines of some of the proposals brought forward to the minister before this bill even became a bill. I share the minister's sense of pride in knowing that Bill 12 has been developed through a process defined by co-operation and partnership.

The most important component of Bill 12 is the provision for the establishment of service delivery bodies called area services boards. ASBs will provide an alternative for delivery and funding of certain key services in northern Ontario. I can't stress enough that this is enabling legislation. Bill 12 will allow municipalities and unincorporated areas in the north to consolidate the delivery of core social and community health services as well as a range of optional services if they so desire. Area service boards are optional. They will be created only where groups of communities want them.

Where approved, these ASBs will be responsible for delivering Ontario Works, child care, social housing, land ambulance, public health and municipal homes for the aged. These new service delivery bodies will be administered by a board consisting of elected representatives and having direct taxing authority over time to recover costs for those services delivered, and only for those services delivered. ASBs would make it easier to achieve greater efficiency and cost savings in service delivery by consolidating a number of single-purpose bodies into one effective, locally accountable delivery agency. That is what we strive towards.

Currently, the northern municipalities are organizing themselves into district social services administration boards for the delivery of a number of social services. We hope that many of them can look to this act to achieve even greater efficiencies on a broader basis than the DSSABs.

With Bill 12, northern municipal leaders will be able to bring forward local governance proposals tailor-made to suit the needs of their communities and the unincorporated areas. Area service boards are unique. They're unique because they can be framed to meet particular local needs in that area, designed and desired by the residents. Municipalities will select boundaries that result in the best balance of cost-effectiveness and cost fairness in the face of local realities. Northerners told us time and again that they require flexible legislation to deal with the issues.

They don't want a Queen's Park solution, a Toronto-made solution for northern issues and northern problems. They want a northern-developed, northern-designed solution to address the needs of northerners, and this bill will give them that.

Flexibility is the hallmark of this legislation. Equally important, this legislation decrees that ASB representatives would be drawn from the ranks of existing elected officials across northern Ontario, and again not by Queen's Park appointment. It is not our intention to create new bureaucracies. Like the other service delivery initiatives introduced by this government, ASBs will make it possible to find savings by reducing waste and duplication at the local level. Northerners can customize these delivery agents to meet their local needs where they choose.

It's also significant to note that ASBs would be directly accountable to the municipalities and unincorporated areas that they serve. Our government has always maintained that accountable governments are good governments, and services administered at the local level are likely to be of a higher quality, more relevant and more responsive to the local constituents.

The Northern Services Improvement Act contains provisions to reform the local services boards in the north, to provide them with the authority to deliver road and library services. Again we have tried to respond to the need identified by northerners for a more coordinated approach to a local service delivery. These changes are designed to lower costs and lessen volunteer workloads in communities where no municipal government may exist in an organized way. Clearly the result can be better services to all those northern taxpayers.

I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in this debate. As a northerner, born and raised in Sault Ste Marie, I truly appreciate the needs, the desires and the objectives that our northern people require to be able to have a better lifestyle. I urge all my colleagues on this side of the House, particularly those fellow colleagues from northern Ontario who represent the north, and across the House floor to support the passage of this enabling legislation that our northern communities have asked for and our northern communities so rightly deserve.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Questions and comments?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to thank the parliamentary assistant for the fine compliment he afforded me in regard to my spirited participation on the committee. I just want to say to the member, and also to other members of the Legislature, that it took a little bit for some of the members on the government side of the committee to understand that some of us from northern Ontario who participated in this process - all of us, I would say - take it very seriously.

When we saw the original bill, we thought it was going in a general direction that was OK, but there were some problems in how the bill was put forward and how it was drafted. We brought forward a number of amendments, which I must say we were successful in getting, that will allow the municipalities a bit more flexibility when it comes to their ability to carry through with an ASB, as well as very important amendments for the francophone community in northern Ontario.

I just want to say to the parliamentary assistant, you were saying in your wrap-up comments that you're looking forward to municipalities utilizing this legislation to design their own solutions, and I only hope you allow them to do so. You would know that in our district, the Cochrane district, because of the latest letter from the Minister of Community and Social Services, they are forcing municipalities into a district services board arrangement quite contrary to the wants and needs of the municipalities involved, both the city of Timmins and those municipalities along Highway 11 from Hearst to Matheson.

I only hope that the government will see their way to the positive result of accepting our recommendation, which is that you give an indication to the local municipalities along Highway 11 that they would be allowed under ASB legislation to control and create their own area services board, less the city of Timmins, and allow them to do what they need to do between the two of them in a more co-operative effort. I can tell you that the other way, the DSB solution, is not to the wants or the needs of any of the people involved. I hope this bill will give them that opportunity.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'll be speaking on this in a little bit more detail later, but I would like to remind the parliamentary assistant that during the visit to Kenora he was reminded on a number of occasions of the flexibility that local services boards would be looking for in this legislation. He was reminded by a good number of presenters that this is a new concept that we'll be venturing into in terms of unorganized areas within the region.

The government is certainly going to have to look at flexibility not only in terms of this new legislation and changes that may come about when they find that some of the things just aren't working, but in terms of funding as well. There were a great number of comments regarding the funding and that when area services boards were to take control of various services within their areas, they would have to take a look at who would be paying. Of course, that would be the local taxpayer within that services board region.

The presentation in Kenora, as he will remember, was around who will fund this, will we be taking a look at funding from the natural resources that come out of the area and exactly where the dollars would be coming from.

Something that I pushed for a great deal was for committee hearings when it came to Bill 12. I must say that, as I travelled with the bill in northwestern Ontario, we certainly heard a good amount of very helpful input into Bill 12 which led to third reading here. I just hope the government heeds the experience we listened to and the great amount of comment and input we received during those travels in northwestern Ontario.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Just briefly on the speech from the parliamentary assistant, I also travelled around the province in northeastern Ontario and northwestern Ontario on Bill 12, and there was a lot of concern. Some of the concern was on the dumping and downloading, and now Bill 12 is supposed to take care of some of those problems that were created by Mike Harris and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Natural Resources dumping all these additional services on to the property taxpayers.

As a result, Bill 12 was supposed to be enabling legislation to have these services delivered in an efficient manner. Whether that's going to be the case or not, we know that with the DSSABs the local agreements the people wanted were being overruled by the minister, Janet Ecker, deciding that the local communities along Highway 11 could not form their own board without being included as part of Timmins. That created a lot of anxiety.

At the same time as Bill 12 and the DSSABs were being discussed, there were attempts made at forced amalgamations within the areas and this was creating concern. It's all because of the government dumping and downloading and wanting the taxpayers to pay for services, whether it be in organized areas or unorganized areas, that normally are paid for out of the general tax revenue. Now they're saying, "If we have to give a 30% tax break to the wealthiest people in this province, we have to find a different way of raising money." Bill 12 is one of the ways of raising revenue from unorganized areas and delivering the services, and taxpayers - property owners - are going to pay for it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Marcel Beaubien): Parliamentary assistant.

Mr Spina: People ask me if I was parliamentary assistant for northern Ontario because I'm from the riding of Brampton North, but I would like to think it was for other grandiose reasons. That's where my mother and my family live. In any case, thank you to the members for Cochrane South and Cochrane North and the member for Kenora.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): The shores of Hudson Bay.

Mr Spina: The member from Scarborough is all too accurate with his comments sometimes.

I appreciate the comments of the members. We heard these discussions through the hearings, through the clause-by-clause, and we debated these issues very clearly and I think succinctly. We kept in mind the objective of this government, that we were trying to do things more efficiently, trying to achieve a more efficient delivery of services of all levels of government. That's why we got into the whole Who Does What exchange. It wasn't simply a downloading or a dumping as the member for Cochrane North says, but really there was a problem in the past.

One of the problems that concerned the unorganized, if I can just draw the members' attention to it, was that they didn't want to actually formally amalgamate to a community, and this opportunity to create an area services board will allow them to still remain as part of an unorganized territory and yet be able to pay for the services that can be delivered for them when and where they choose.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Sudbury.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be starting off our caucus's hour. However, we will be sharing the hour among the five of us and that will be the member for Kenora, Mr Miclash; the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, Mr Brown; the member for Port Arthur, Mr Gravelle; and the member for Timiskaming, Mr Ramsay, in that order.

I too am very happy to be able to take

part in this debate. I have serious reservations about this bill. I have had them from the first meeting the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and I had last Christmas. Certainly nothing that's happened over the course of the last six or seven months has stopped the fears I have with this piece of legislation.

The parliamentary assistant suggested this is enabling legislation. It is defined as enabling legislation but in reality it is conflicting legislation, and the potential here for conflicts between the Ministry of Health, between the Ministry of Community and Social Services, between the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is paramount in importance as we debate and finally vote on this bill this evening. What has happened with the Ministry of Community and Social Services in trying to create the DSSAB is what's going to be happening here through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines when we try to create these area services boards.

Speaker after speaker after speaker brought this to the government's attention as we travelled northern Ontario, and I'm suggesting to you, Speaker, and to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines people that what we're going to see here is confusion reigning supreme. It isn't enabling legislation at all. It is conflicting legislation and it's going to be legislation that forces groups to become part of an area services board, even though they won't want to. They will have no option, except to take

part in this area services board.

I would suggest to you, as several presenters said, that Bill 12 is a part of a disturbing pattern of creating very large units for governing northern Ontario. I believe the pattern threatens to reduce the level of services in northern Ontario and the ability of citizens to have a say in how they are going to be served and how they are going to be governed.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that this is the imposition of another level of government, and I thought that was contrary to the fundamental philosophy of the Mike Harris government in that they wanted and they espoused lesser government or less government involvement in people's lives. Well, clearly this legislation increases government in people's lives. Despite the fact that the Harris government claims that these area services boards are not government - they refer to them as corporations - the reality is that they have the power of taxation and as such will require a bureaucracy, and as such this is nothing short of more government.

This extra level of government is going to have a profound influence on the lives of many people. I just want to talk about the people in the regional municipality of Sudbury for an example, one of many. The reality is that we have a regional form of government already and this area services board is a regional form of government. The parliamentary assistant and the members of the committee heard that from so many people across northern Ontario as we travelled in committee. This is an extra level of government.

It is a redundant level of government, especially in the regional municipality of Sudbury because our region is already providing the services that this area services board legislation would deem to allow an affected area.

The logical conclusion then would be to exclude the regional municipality of Sudbury from this legislation as it is the only region in northern Ontario. That was an amendment we put forward. It was an amendment that made complete sense to the members of the official opposition and to the members of the third party. We saw it as increasing the amount of government for the regional municipality of Sudbury residents. However, the government refused that amendment. So what we have now is not enabling legislation any more, but conflicting legislation among ministries. That will not enhance the service level or the delivery of services at all, but will in fact cause more problems down the line.

I suggest as well that there are still many groups that are not satisfied with what happened during the committee or after the committee. I'd like to spend just a few moments talking about the OMA's presentation, which took place on August 11 in Kenora. The OMA has reservations about Bill 12, but it thought the government would listen to its recommendations and in fact the president, Dr William Orovan, suggested that Bill 12 could be a good piece of legislation if the government chose to listen and make the proper amendments to the legislation to ensure public health needs were protected, enhanced and enshrined.

The reality is that didn't happen. In fact, every one of the recommendations made by the OMA with regard to the power of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in competition with or in conflict with the Ministry of Health was not accepted. The reality that there would be an enshrining of the Health Protection and Promotion Act was not accepted. There was a concern on the part of the OMA that the area services boards undertake the provision of public health services, that the area services board must be deemed to be a board of health within the full meaning of and fully subject to the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Again, that was an amendment that wasn't accepted.

We're hearing from the parliamentary assistant that this is a government that consults widely. The problem that is in place now, the problem that has been in place since 1995, the reality, is that this government doesn't listen to the people who are most affected by the legislation they bring forth. Because they haven't listened, Bill 12 is a little weaker than it could have been if they had listened to the many recommendations we've heard.

I want to address the French-language issue for a second, because that was certainly a concern of ours and indeed of the third party. We now have French-language services being provided in the form of what we'll call a letter of intent. I don't think that goes far enough in protecting the services. I would hope that people across northern Ontario would agree with me that if you want to protect something, you put it in legislation. The government refused to do that. They refused to enshrine French language rights in that legislation.

Although - and I'll give full credit here - Mr Bisson fought very hard at ensuring that was a part of the legislation, the reality is the government said no to that and put it in the form of a letter of intent. I would have felt a lot more comfortable if that were enshrined in the legislation.

The regional municipality of Sudbury certainly has trouble with 3(a), the accountability, and

section 2(

a) with regard to efficiencies, and

section 2(

b) with regard to public access and participation. Recommendations were made but weren't put forth by the government in the form of an amendment. In fact they were voted down.

I suggest, as I wind down my time, that it is very important for the people of northern Ontario to understand that the reason for this legislation is purely and simply the result of very ill-conceived and poorly thought out downloading initiatives on the part of this government. A KPMG study would indicate that all 11 northern Ontario municipalities are ranked among the 25th percentile of municipalities with the highest cost.

Whether you look at per capita cost of downloading, whether you look at per household cost of downloading, whether you look at the education tax available, you will find that the most negatively affected area of this province is consistently northern Ontario municipalities.

If you want to compare the regions of Ontario, the picture is even worse. If you look at the regional municipality of Sudbury, the only region in northern Ontario, the per capita cost ranking is the second hardest hit, per household cost is the second hardest hit, education tax available is the hardest hit, reliance on the municipal support grant is the hardest hit, and in regard to the most savings required, they rank first in having to achieve the most savings.

I don't believe that Bill 12 will meet the needs of northerners. I don't believe that Bill 12 will be able to provide those services the way it should be providing services through the use of area services boards.

I would suggest to the House, I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant for northern development and mines and I would suggest certainly to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines that had they listened to the people of northern Ontario, had they taken the advice and the recommendations they heard throughout northern Ontario, had they listened to the two opposition parties in offering viable alternatives to their legislation, the reality would be that I would be able to stand up and say I can support Bill 12.

The real reality is that's impossible because this government again didn't listen to northerners.

Mr Miclash: I too am privileged to participate in the comments made about Bill 12. I was happy, as I indicated earlier, that Bill 12 did go to committee and did come into northwestern Ontario. As I indicated earlier, we heard a good number of very positive comments in terms of Bill 12 and in terms of its being a move in the right direction. We listened to one presentation in Kenora by the mayor of Jaffray Malick, who talked about governance. He indic