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

May 15, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L192 - Thu 15 May 1997 / Jeu 15 Mai 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRIAN HARRISON

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS MONTH

BUDGET

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

OMA AGREEMENT

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

OMA AGREEMENT

CARE HOMES

TOURISM INDUSTRY

BUSINESS OCCUPANCY TAX

LABOUR DISPUTE

HOUSING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

FIRE SAFETY

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

BIRTH CONTROL

CHILD CARE

FIRE SAFETY

FIREARMS CONTROL

ADULT EDUCATION

SALE OF AMMUNITION

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

RENT REGULATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TARTAN ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TARTAN

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

The House met at 1101.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I am pleased to move private member's notice of motion number 53:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should implement a permanent, equitable, patient-based health care funding formula, thereby ensuring that high-growth GTA/905 regions such as Peel, Halton, York and Durham, where demand for health care services is expected to increase by 26.5% from 1995 to 2003, receive a more equitable share of available health care dollars.

As is tradition in the Legislature, private members' business is a time to speak to an issue or a concern to the community that one represents. I've chosen to bring forward a resolution that's important not just to the high-growth areas like the city of Brampton and the region of Peel, but particularly across Ontario.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I wish I had noticed before we started. There is not a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Mr Spina.

Mr Spina: Thank you, Speaker. Has the time returned to the clock? I think we lost about a minute there.

That important issue is, how do we as a government fund health care and other services so communities with substantial high growth are able to meet the unprecedented need and demand for services? The best way I feel this can be accomplished is through developing a permanent, patient-based funding formula.

What I'm not trying to do here is say that one area of the province is more important than another. My travels to northern and rural Ontarian municipalities prove that each region has different needs that must be met in the most effective and efficient way possible, and any area experiencing significant growth or not would be served by this type of funding formula. The city I represent has a big problem trying to match continued growth with services, and the best way to help alleviate this problem would be a patient-based funding formula.

I want to begin by providing members of the Legislature with some background on the issue and why it's important to my riding but also some of the other areas. This is not a new issue to Brampton or to the region of Peel, Durham and York, particularly because of the unprecedented growth that this area has experienced in the province and in fact anywhere in Canada.

During the 1995 campaign, I heard a lot about what we called a fair share of funding for services. In fact there's an organization called the Fair Share for Peel Task Force, chaired by Hal Brooks. There is also a GTA/905 Health Care Alliance, with Jim Armstrong, some of the members of which are here in the gallery today.

These people are very hardworking individuals who are striving to overcome the historical underfunding of these areas. The historical underfunding has finally reached its peak. We must now help finish the plan to help ease the burden on services in these communities.

For over a decade, growth in places like Brampton has continued beyond the provincial average while the proportional share of provincial dollars -- not just provincially but also federally -- the $2.1-billion cut we've got in health care from the federal government is something we have had a lot of difficulty trying to come to address.

From about 1990 to 1995 the growth in the 905 region, in Brampton in particular, has been at a rate of 16%. By 2003, it would be an additional 26.5%. Overall, the GTA/905 population is expected to reach about 4.5 million in about five years' time. One glaring example of the historical inequity is the amount of money spent per capita on hospital funding -- and I'm sure that other areas of Ontario will also have comparative figures -- but the per capita funding is about $400 in the GTA/905, while the provincial average is about $700 per capita. Cities like Toronto are about $1,000 per capita.

There are various reasons for them being higher or lower, but if we want to better integrate the health care system, a more equitable way of distributing funds has to be established. What I'm asking here today is that a continuation of the current program that the Ministry of Health has begun be completed and that the plan go all the way so that a proper, patient-based funding formula be developed, so that any high-growth area can receive its fair share of funding dollars.

There are jurisdictions in Canada with population-based funding, like Alberta and BC. For example, in Alberta 20% is added to the per-person funding for remote, rural communities to provide for a full range of basic services. It's not just a straightforward, simple, patient-based funding formula, but it also has to have flexibility to address the needs of rural and other communities across the province, where there is not growth but there are other specific needs. Recent trends show that this type of funding better supports the creation of an integrated health care system that our government is developing.

Our government has clearly shown leadership in restructuring this system to better meet the needs of patients. Despite the $2.1-billion cut from the federal government mentioned earlier, we've managed to make about $900 million in reinvestments to date. We've not only sealed the health care envelope at $17.4 billion from the 1994 level, but as a result of this past budget, increased it to $18.5 billion.

Further, Jim Wilson, our minister, has helped growth areas with revisions to the funding formula. He has instructed the joint policy and planning committee of the Ontario Hospital Association and the ministry to alter the formula so that growth funding is available for hospitals in our areas. The creation of the high-growth fund has reinvested over $6.6 million over the past two years in my own local hospital, Peel Memorial in Brampton, and made about $25 million available in each of the last two years to help some of the other 905 area hospitals.

In Burlington, Joseph Brant hospital faced a similar problem. Key reinvestments have been made there: $1.5 million from the high-growth fund this year, increased to $2.4 million. Overall the hospital only had to find efficiencies of $1.3 million, which isn't easy, we respect that, but we also look at the reinvestments made in the MRI machine, mental health programs, community-based care in Halton and Peel region. As a matter of fact, as we speak this morning, Minister Wilson and Minister Jackson are in Peel making an announcement for community health care integrated programs in the Peel region.

Two studies specifically allude to the problem. The Angus Reid study was the first one that said 68% said the Harris government was on track in reforming health care and 58% said the government should use available funding. The Fraser Institute study, which was the second one, said that people living outside of Toronto are waiting 20% longer to receive elective surgery; people in the GTA are waiting from 27% to 150% longer for access to diagnostic technology.

The most important factor is that 80% of the people responding to the survey said that funding should be redistributed more equitably as a result of hospital restructuring. That's the focus of the conversation and the theme we would like to see achieved this morning.

The goals of the restructuring commission should be enhanced to address the real needs of patients, be it in a high-growth area like the GTA/905, or smaller rural and northern cities like Peterborough, Sault Ste Marie, Sarnia or other areas. The historic inequity can only be dealt with through a permanent, patient-based funding formula. Our government's efforts to create an integrated health care system would greatly benefit by coordinating health care resources better so that we can deliver the services closer to home.

I know Dr Sinclair of the Health Services Restructuring Commission is attempting to achieve this goal, and various groups, like the groups I mentioned earlier, the GTA/905 Health Care Alliance as well as the Fair Share for Peel Task Force and some of the other groups within the other communities across Ontario, are lobbying for a far more equitable method of funding so that we can do what we are attempting to do, what we promised in the Common Sense Revolution, and that was to deliver a patient-based budgeting system for the patients of this province, so that the dollar ends up at the street level where the patients need it.

That's what we are trying to achieve. We've begun that road. The purpose of this resolution is to encourage that further and to get it down to the very end of that road so that we can deliver the services to all of the patients in our province to the best of our ability and in a very cost-efficient manner. To that goal, I hope that the members of our government and members of the opposition will concur with that objective and support the resolution.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I will speak on this matter for just a few moments and then give the rest of my time to two of my colleagues in our caucus.

I must admit that I'm somewhat surprised that the member would talk about the goal of the restructuring commission. He's requesting that the goals of the restructuring committee be enhanced so that the real needs of the patients can be more properly taken into account. Quite frankly, I would have thought with the influence he has with his government caucus colleagues and with the Minister of Health, he certainly could have made sure that that was in actual fact one of the goals in the mandate of the restructuring commission. If it's not, it's too late to talk about that now, because we all know that the restructuring commission has caused an awful lot of uncertainty throughout the province.

I've always maintained that we should be looking at these things not so much from the structural viewpoint, not so much from a governance viewpoint -- I think people have a tendency to get totally hung up on this -- but rather from a patient's viewpoint: Is the potential patient better off in the community with the different health care services that are available to that patient, whether they be hospital services, whether they be community services, or whatever, as a result of the whole restructuring exercise?

I think the impression that has been left, particularly in many of the communities where the restructuring commission has already visited, is that their main goal and function is to close down hospitals. People are very concerned about that, especially if they don't see the community care facilities and services that everybody seems to be talking about as being available in their individual municipalities.

It has always been my view that not one hospital ought to be closed until the alternative care facilities, the community care services, are actually available. I would have thought that this member might have made his viewpoint better known to the Minister of Health so that when the restructuring commission and organization was set up, that would have been one of its mandates.

I also hope that this resolution doesn't just apply to the three or four growth municipalities that he's talking about in his resolution. I think this kind of funding formula ought to be made available throughout Ontario.

However, if there's one concern that I have about any of these funding formulas, we have to recognize that different parts of the province have different needs and different situations arise. In my own part of the province, for example, and the community I represent, we have a much larger component of senior citizens than in many other communities, and one of the reasons for that is that we have excellent health care services available which attracted a lot of people to retire to the Kingston area.

We have to take demographics into account as well, because it's a well-known fact that the elderly will require more health care services than, let's say, rapidly growing areas where you've got many more younger families.

I certainly am going to vote in favour of this resolution. I think it's the right way to go. It will give the communities where people decide to live and reside and work some greater source of comfort that the health care dollars will be made available as the communities increase in size. But I hope at the same time that we do not limit ourselves by putting too many restrictions on any particular ministry by coming up with too many complicated formulas as to how the funding arrangements ought to be arrived at.

I will be voting in favour of this resolution but would encourage the member to take up this matter with his colleague within his own caucus, the Minister of Health, to make sure that there's still something that can be done with respect to the restructuring commission, to make sure that the need to recognize the real needs of the patients is taken into account to a much larger extent by the hospital restructuring commission than has so far been the case.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to rise and speak to this motion and, first of all, say I will be supporting it. I think the member is trying to do something which all members of this House try to do, which is advocate for the region they represent.

I only want to take two or three minutes because I want to leave the remainder of the time to our critic for health, the member for London Centre, who will speak on this later. But I couldn't help but get up for a couple of reasons, because I think the member did mention it. I've got to at least give him some credit for that. He said that you can't look at hospital funding or health care funding based only on population, that you also have to look at the demographics of the area.

Being a member from northern Ontario I want to speak to that, because I think members of the Legislature need to understand that in northern Ontario you may not have the population concentration that you would have in a Brampton or a Mississauga, but we have other challenges that challenge the amount of money that we need to spend in health care only to provide minimal services, not to provide the Cadillac of services that you would get living in Mississauga or that you might get living in downtown Toronto.

I talk about the region of northeastern Ontario, and I'll talk specifically from Temagami to Hearst up to Timmins. You have a number of communities there. You have small, rural municipal hospitals in communities like Cochrane, Matheson, Iroquois Falls and Smooth Rock Falls that don't have the number of patients to draw from to give them the cost-per-patient ratio to make it look as if they're extremely efficient.

The problem is that they must have emergency departments within those communities. You don't have the population base you have in Toronto. It makes it look like they're much more expensive to keep going. Of course you're going to spend money, because there's a fixed cost to having a hospital. I think members need to know that. If you're going to offer emergency care, if you're going to offer certain basic levels of service in communities like Matheson, Iroquois Falls, Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls or Hearst, it's going to cost the government some money.

I think the government needs to understand that, so when we talk about increased funding I just want to say, "Yoo-hoo, remember us in northern Ontario."

We've been having all kinds of problems over the years in trying to get governments to make sure they put in place the dollars needed to offer even basic minimum care. I was glad and proud to be a member of a government that went a long way to addressing some of those issues. We did deal with hospital funding issues in communities, like Timmins and others, which have been able to increase services such as CAT scans and MRIs and other services.

The other thing I want, in about the last minute I have here, is just to put the end to one myth. One of the things that we're deathly afraid of is this hospital restructuring committee that the government has set up through Bill 26, because what it means to say is that this commission will come to our community and tell us what we need to do with our hospitals.

I have to say to you, I want to stand here and say, we are capable of dealing with it ourselves. We have done so in our community. In the city of Timmins we merged our own hospitals together into one corporate entity called the Timmins and District Hospital. It took time, it cost money, but in the end we've got a good model that everybody was able to buy into. If you come into communities and you start shoving this stuff down their throats, no wonder they get upset and no wonder they say they're mad at the Mike Harris government.

I say to you, trust the people in the communities to make the right decisions. Given the time, they will do so. They're responsible individuals. Second, please stop this myth that this government has nothing to do with hospital restructuring and it's that bad old commission, because we all know you're the government that put in place Bill 26. Bill 26 is the mechanism by which the Minister of Health appoints the hospital restructuring committee and goes out and closes hospitals in our communities. Stop hiding behind the veil of Bill 26 and that commission.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm very pleased to rise and speak today to the resolution of Mr Spina, the member for Brampton North. Certainly the member has done some excellent work in this caucus to date, especially in terms of small business and getting some capital from the banks to help out small businesses. Also I know a very important issue to the member for Brampton North is the way that health services are funded in Ontario. He's right.

In the Common Sense Revolution, the government pledged to bring in a patient-based health care system, not just a straight per-capita model, not just based on historical funding but something that will take the needs of the individual patients into account in each particular area. The government, the Ministry of Health. has moved in that direction. The work of Mr Spina from Brampton North and Mr Clement from Brampton South has brought the concerns of the GTA to the minister's attention.

We've seen some follow-through on the Common Sense Revolution promises. For example, we've set up the joint policy and planning committee, the JPPC -- the committee is composed of members of the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ministry of Health and hospital administrators -- to come up with a funding formula that recognizes the needs of patients instead of some historical or block funding, something that's going to meet the demand and the needs of the patients.

In fact, I think four out of the 11 hospital administrators on the JPPC are from the 905 code; there's a 36% representation. The JPPC process has recognized the role that population growth plays in the needs of health care services. There are two funds that have been set up. One's an $18-million fund. That's for hospitals that have experienced higher-than-expected growth and demand for services last year due to an increase in population beyond the provincial average.

In addition to that, we've come up with a $25-million fund for the same reasons: for population growth and demand for the hospitals in the GTA region. You've seen the Ministry of Health making good on those promises of the Common Sense Revolution and responding to the concerns of Mr Spina and his colleagues from the 905 area.

As you know, it's not just population growth that counts. There are other criteria that would dictate how much money should go to a particular hospital or a particular area for health care: age and sex, definitely important criteria; I've said population growth of the entire catchment area; as well, the distances for our rural members; age for those in retirement communities. Finally, I think it depends a lot on the specific kinds of services offered in the community.

This type of recognition of all these variables -- growth, age, sex, distance and rural concerns -- is not unique to hospital funding; it's also important in terms of long-term-care funding and mental health services. In fact, the government has set up a $170-million fund for community-based long-term-care services that will equalize services across the province that respond to those criteria like age, sex and particular patient needs.

The ministry evaluates need based on the age and sex of the population it's serving, compared to what exists in the province as an average. Many areas of the province have benefited from this program, including my own in Niagara. Just this week the minister announced an $8.1-million program for the Durham region so that patients can receive more nursing and therapy right there in their homes, to recover quicker in the comfort of their own homes and with their families. It allows for more services in terms of rehab, Meals on Wheels, attendant outreach and other services for the people in Mr Spina's region.

The minister recently was in the Niagara Peninsula with some announcements for community care, because we have a growing senior population in Niagara. I think that was about an $8.7-million reinvestment made recently for Niagara, an area that has traditionally not benefited to the same extent based on the needs of its senior population.

Our long-term-care funding also responds to similar criteria, age and sex, so the facilities with residents in the greatest need now, those that have the highest demands for the greater quality of care, will receive additional funding. Instead of just across the board, we're going to recognize the patients' individual needs.

Finally, a $23.5-million community investment fund for mental health services: This formula is also based on the need to address the historical inequities in funding issues throughout the region, again based on population, per capita funding, as well as rural concerns, land mass, ethnicity, aboriginal and current bed ratios.

In conclusion, in the Common Sense Revolution our government made a solid commitment to fund health care services based on need, a patient-based health care funding formula, as Mr Spina's resolution calls for. We have begun the difficult process of health care restructuring so that we can focus those scarce dollars, putting more of our health care dollars into direct care for those communities in need.

Every dollar we have saved from eliminating waste and duplication has been reinvested in health care services that put patients first, whether it's in the GTA, whether it's in Niagara, whether it's in the north, whether it's in downtown Toronto, putting patients first for a change. I congratulate the member for Brampton North for advocating on behalf of the citizens in Brampton North.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today I'm very happy to speak to this resolution that Mr Spina brings forward that talks about equitable, patient-based health care and its funding. My question, I suppose, is where the members opposite were on February 27, when I brought a similar motion into this House to be discussed, which talked about appropriately funding health care. I find it very strange that on February 27 this particular member opposed my resolution which called for a formula to be used in its determination that takes into account various factors like geography and demography. I wonder how the member Mr Hudak, who just spoke today, voted on my resolution on February 27.

Moreover, last fall, when the Liberal member for Windsor-Walkerville, Dwight Duncan, brought in a private member's bill that would enshrine the Canada Health Act here in Ontario, every single government member voted opposed to that motion. I'm starting to wonder because if you put a candle right in the middle you wouldn't be able to blow it out, because you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. The point is you cannot come in here today and be supportive of equitable treatment in health care for your own backyard and say to the rest of us in Ontario, "No, you can do without."

How many of the Conservative members today have met with your finance minister, who managed so wonderfully for his riding to reopen the Burk's Falls Hospital? In the face of massive hospital closures across Ontario, your finance minister was able to go to Burk's Falls and open a hospital; the only time a hospital has been opened in probably about two decades, your finance minister, in today's climate, has opened a hospital.

I say to the members opposite, if you are intent, if you are serious about what you say here today in this resolution, that the people in the high-growth GTA deserve good health care, that they ought to have it just like the people from Windsor and Essex county, just like the people who surround Burk's Falls, you must come to the table not just when it's good for your own backyard, but when it's good for every Ontario resident.

If you choose to vote today on this resolution, may I tell you that you are entering a fray the likes of which you won't forget because you will now be on the carpet as being supportive of appropriate health care service right across Ontario. That's your duty. You are government members, you set the policy in place here, and it is your responsibility not just for what happens in Simcoe or in Niagara Falls or indeed in Brampton, but for what happens in Windsor. That's your responsibility too.

You can't today come to the table and decide you want to see appropriate health care funding; you need to come to the table every day. It's just like your Solicitor General who tries to go to bat today for the psychiatric hospital in Brockville, but is part of the table that actually constructed the Health Services Restructuring Commission, the group that proposes to close that psychiatric hospital. That too is unconscionable. You can't have it both ways.

If this is supposed to be political, if this is supposed to be helpful to the people of the GTA, may I tell everyone in Ontario today that when this government sucks dry hospitals across Ontario, that money is not being reinvested in their community. That's the message the government wants you to believe, but having experienced this government for the last two years, the money does not go back in your community.

Windsor's emergency room on the west side: today closed. Has the reinvestment been made in Windsor? No. It is as simple as that. We have two bays where ambulances can drive in and we have five ambulances that have to drive in, with no reinvestment to have reconfigured it before they closed the emergency service. It is as simple as that; it is no more complicated than that. This government is not reinvesting where they are pulling the money from your health care.

Today I think it's laudable, I think it's honourable that the member should want to propose equitable funding, that each Ontarian should expect appropriate health care service, but this, my friends, is a very hypocritical resolution today. With what we have suffered in Ontario in various hot spots where health care service is terrible today, because the Conservative government is pulling money out, this today is shocking to read, frankly.

Last year, two years ago, when the hospital cuts began, there was a very interesting announcement that the Minister of Health made. He made a very special allocation of $25 million. To where? To the GTA hospitals. He made an extra $25-million reinvestment, so-called, to hospitals that were in high-growth areas, and most of that money went to hospitals in the very region that is being discussed today. What was so interesting about it was that when they cut $10 million from the hospital budget, they made a huge announcement and they reinvested an extra $1 million.

Well, the hospital is still out $9 million, and it does not take the people who are on the front line very long to figure out that is still a massive cut.

Ladies and gentlemen, should you vote in favour of this resolution, I am thrilled. I am looking forward to having Mr Spina join me in the fight for excellent health care in Windsor and Essex county. I am looking forward to Mr Hudak joining me in the fight for excellence in health care in Windsor and Essex county. All of you must come on board, because every Ontarian, including those in the GTA, deserves that kind of health care.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: Before we start, I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, is there a quorum?

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this resolution today. As everyone in this country knows, New Democrats very much favour equitable, universal, accessible medicare. This motion is focused on the ability of citizens to be sure they will have equitable access to health care wherever they live, and that as the patterns of population change they will continue to have that access. In terms of the base underlying principles for this motion, we obviously are in favour of it.

I do have a number of concerns, however, that need to be mentioned. I wish the resolution did not focus just on the high-growth areas, as several other members have said, that if we are going to have an equitable patient-based health care funding formula, it needs to be a formula that takes into account not just high growth but the demographics, the geography and all that sort of thing. It is extremely important that as the government moves forward on this, those issues as well as growth are taken into account. I am comforted somewhat by the member from -- I'm not sure -- Mr Hudak's comments that this is indeed the purpose of the ministry's study.

What is unfortunate is that we are looking at this kind of situation at the same time we're faced with cuts in the health care system. I know this government insists there are not cuts, but when you actually sort out the dollars, in fact what we are seeing is at very best a zero-sum situation for health care funding in the province. What a plan like this does, and everybody has to understand this, is it shifts around the costs, and if it's based only on population, only on population growth, what it means is taking away from one community to give to another and that is why there is so much turmoil in terms of the changes in restructuring health care in this province.

I want to read from an

article by John Barber in the Globe and Mail on May 14 entitled "Province Plays Giveth-and-Taketh-Away Game." He says in part:

"The right hand giveth and the left taketh away. It's an old game, but altogether too familiar in the painfully zero-sum 1990s.

"No one denies the need to supply new schools, hospitals, roads and sewers to serve expanding populations. That's the cost of growth, and growth is good. Well-intentioned bureaucrats dispensing health care dollars are naturally going to target need....

"But the straightforward arguments get fishy when disinvestment in slow-expanding areas becomes the necessary prelude for more investment in fast-expanding areas. How can it be economical to abandon perfectly good, accessible facilities in one location, only to rebuild them in another? Why should established communities pay so heavily to serve new ones -- not only in the loss of their own services but also in the steady tax drain created by subsidies for new hospitals, schools and roads?

"Such linkages are not always obvious in Canada, and the questions rarely put. But in the United States, where pro-sprawl subsidies are so deeply entrenched and urban abandonment is so pervasive, they are blatant. In many US cities, it has become almost impossible to distinguish between growth and decline....

"Every step of the way, well-intentioned bureaucrats and elected officials made rational decisions based on the requirements of efficiency and the sober assessment of need. But the overall result was insanely wasteful and discriminatory against the established communities.

"Ontario's hospital restructuring commission is engaged in the same good work. Can we expect a different result?"

It is not a mistake that people, when they talk about the restructuring commission, talk about it as a hospital restructuring commission rather than a Health Services Restructuring Commission because that is what it has become. What we see is this commission going around looking at the hospital sector, having power only in the hospital sector, and all of the other components of the health care system they may look at, they may give recommendations on, but they in fact have no power to change.

The resolution talks about health care funding, and that's very important. It's one of the reasons we'll support the resolution even though we have some concerns about its focus just on growth areas, because it's talking about health care overall. It's probably blasphemy to those areas that know they need an investment in hospital services to suggest to them that it is important not to make the mistake of putting all of the health care funding into hospitals in those areas just at the very time we are learning to invest elsewhere in things other than bricks and mortar.

It's important when we talk about health care funding that we look at the discrepancies in the availability of long-term care, that we look at the discrepancies in the availability of other forms of health care services in growth areas, in rural areas, in northern areas and that we realize that part of our task is shifting dollars from the hospital sector into other forms of health care.

It's also probably blasphemy to suggest that those areas that are not heavily hospital oriented in terms of their health care have a better opportunity to make that shift into an overall health care system than those that have focused all their resources just in the hospital sector. I believe very much, however, that as we look at this whole situation, it is going to be important to look at that, not to try and build hospitals, which we all did for many years, as the measure of health care rather than take the opportunity to look at that reinvestment in a new way. In the growth areas of the GTA, that probably is one of our best benefits.

There is no question that if you have zero growth or very small growth in the health care system, we are going to see services taken away from one community to provide them in another. Particularly now, with the announcement of the OMA agreement with the government, we know that the dollars are going to be even more focused in one sector of the health care system and that the task of reallocating dollars means more will be taken away from established communities.

When you look at 10 hospitals slated for closure in the Metropolitan Toronto area and you look at the demand for new hospitals or growth in hospitals in the GTA area, it doesn't take much imagination to see that what is being taken away from the established communities is going to be reinvested in those other communities.

Is there another way? Obviously there's another way. There's a transitional formula that ought to be used that prevents some of the we-and-them kind of attitude that's beginning to develop. This government has made that attitude worse by taking draconian measures to force an amalgamation in Metropolitan Toronto, to force a change of assessment to market value assessment in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and now appears to be taking away the very services the people in this community paid their dollars to build.

This is particularly true in terms of education, where the Metropolitan Toronto area has funded its own education, without provincial grants for the most part, for many years, yet the whole prospect of losing that funding they have worked so hard to build and the choices they have made is very much there.

If we look at this resolution, particularly because it focuses just on the GTA and it isn't talking about an equitable, patient-based formula that takes into account all these other things, it gives rise to concern. I repeat that we believe very much that as populations change we need to look at the shift of services, that services are always, always evolving.

In a municipality like East York, which includes Leaside, where I grew up and went to school, when I went to school in the 1950s there weren't enough schools. We all had to double up; we had 42 people in a room. The schools were built to accommodate that kind of population. Now the population has changed and those schools do not need as much space as they have now. That's certainly happened in my town of London. I think it's happened all over the province. What we have to be aware of is that we have to build in the flexibility for changing population patterns over many years when we're talking about capital investments, when we're talking about service investments.

This resolution speaks to a permanent, patient-based health care funding formula. I must tell you that permanency is not a goal. We should be accepting and recognizing that there needs to be an evolutionary funding formula, a formula that can be altered to meet needs that we can't even imagine at this stage of our lives if health care services change as rapidly as they have in the last 10 to 15 years.

We will support this resolution, but we have a lot of concerns about what its impact will be on the rest of Ontario.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise today to speak on this resolution from my colleague from Brampton North. I thank him for putting this forward because Thursday morning gives us the opportunity to talk to the important issues across this province and there's no doubt in my mind that health is one of the most important.

While his resolution indicates strong support for his own region, I think we need strong support right across the whole province. If we look across this entire province we see growth of a magnitude we have not seen since the 1950s. The difference in this growth pattern is the age of Ontario's population. The 1950s population segment, tagged "baby-boomers," is moving into the middle-aged and senior levels. With this phenomena comes more demanding change in health care requirements.

Couple this with medical diagnostic and treatment advances, add technical advances to this formula and our whole concept of health care changes. We have high areas of greater demand for medical treatment such as kidney dialysis services, diabetes care, cancer treatment and cardiac surgery.

For many years, paramedic training was only offered in the 416 and some 905 areas of the province, leaving other regions, such as the 705 area, without crucial first medical treatment, which can and does save lives. Just recently, I attended a presentation of awards honouring paramedics who responded to a medical emergency at Casino Rama. Their quick reaction to the situation resulted in a life saved. Paramedics in my riding of Simcoe East are trained at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie. This program is an example of wise government spending directed to an area that a need outside the GTA/905 represents.

All regions of this province -- 613, 519, 705, 905 and 416 -- should have the same medical assistance available. However, we must also recognize that each area of the province is unique, with different demands for health care services. The current health care funding formula takes into consideration the statistics of a region, basing health care funding on the need. The Ministry of Health considers age, gender and growth when developing funding criteria. I agree with this targeting in high-need areas. I feel this creates a better medical care system.

New technology makes our old ideas of health care standards obsolete. We no longer require the same number of patient rooms in our hospitals that we needed in the 1950s. We now need space for technical equipment departments which can be shared by several communities. As an example, the dialysis unit at the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital is designated as a centre for dialysis treatment and includes patients from Barrie, Midland, Penetanguishene and the Muskokas. The dialysis unit at Soldiers' is serving the acute care needs of my riding and each community creates its own needs from its own variety.

We are considering the individual needs of each community in our province and we are providing our health care funding accordingly. The district health councils are the guiding force behind health care funding in each region. They have actually worked hard and long in their community and are best able to identify health care funding requirements to the Ministry of Health.

While I agree in principle with my colleague's resolution describing the premise of equitable funding, I feel our focus should remain on assisting the needs of every community. We must continue to provide health care funding to all of Ontario rather than specific areas named in this resolution, which I believe we're doing today.

We don't want to forget that some 9,000 beds were closed over the last two administrations. What hospitals were closed? Not one. We want to look at the heart operations that have taken place. We want to look at the new Peter Munk Cardiac Centre with 3,000 operations per year. I predict the day when we will see very few lineups to get heart surgery. We also look at the knee and hip operations that have taken place. The waiting lists are getting shorter in many areas.

When I look at the new technology that's taken place today, I look at the fact sheet that Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Orillia put out where they talked about the new mammograph lab, the new CT scanner, the new telemedicine whereby they can communicate with hospitals here in Toronto -- these were all done in the administration of this government -- the regional dialysis program, the new ultrasound. We have a sleep disorder lab in the Soldiers' hospital in Orillia, the first one in Simcoe county. These are the new technologies that are taking place. When I hear people saying we're moving too fast, I think they should look at the facts and see what's really happening across this province.

I say to the Minister of Health, drive on, because technology today is the key to all medical prescription, and that's what we need.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? I'm trying to follow rotation here but nobody stood up, so I believe it's the member for St Catharines next.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Let them go ahead.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today in support of the member's resolution number 53. On first reading of that resolution I certainly respected the intent of the resolution. As I read through the resolution, I wouldn't like to think that any one area of Ontario should be treated differently than any other area of Ontario.

With that theme in mind, I just want to take time to recognize that in the members' gallery we have a number of volunteer board members from the hospitals in my area here in support of fair funding for health care throughout all Ontario, not just in Durham East or any part of the Durham region: Jim Armstrong, Bruce Smith, Virginia McLaughlan and Steve Wilson, just to name a few members, are from Oshawa General Hospital, Bowmanville Memorial Hospital and Port Perry hospital, as well as other hospitals throughout Durham. They've all been fighting for equitable funding.

As we well know throughout Ontario, we're underfunded from the federal government. The federal Liberal government has reduced transfer payments by over $2 billion, and it has been widely known that Ontario is funded to the tune of some $700 per patient as compared to the average of some $1,000 per patient. If you look across Ontario, it's widely understood as well that there is, under the current funding formula, a disparity ranging in the area of some $1,000 for some areas in the province down to perhaps as little as $400 per patient in areas like the 905.

Really all we're asking in this resolution is I believe the member is looking for equity, and in that regard I fully expect that Mr Gerretsen from Kingston and The Islands and others will be supporting it, because everyone wants to be fair and reasonable when dealing with health care, a very important priority for each and every one of us.

I want to conclude by suggesting that in the province just recently, the minister, Jim Wilson, was in Durham announcing the opening of the MRI unit at Oshawa General Hospital. He also announced $8.1 million to long-term care that's helping patients in their homes. These are initiatives the minister has taken. In fact, it was the efforts of the whole GTA alliance that I believe the minister recognized with the $25-million funding for those hospitals, a recognition that there were some existing inequities; also recognizing hospitals in underserviced areas by providing the $75-an-hour emergency room coverage, which was important to one of my hospitals that was included.

All in all, I hope all members will be supporting the member's resolution recognizing putting the patient first and giving every patient full access to hospital funding without preference for area or any other demographic reason. It's a fair and reasonable resolution and I believe all members should be supporting it.

Mr Bradley: I think what we have to demonstrate to people in this province is that you can't have it both ways when you're on the government side. You can't stand in this House and extol the virtues of the so-called Common Sense Revolution, which calls for drastic cuts in funding for services across the province and then go home and pull on the shirt that says you want to save your local hospital or you want to make sure your local hospital has all the funding. That's what the Common Sense Revolution is all about.

But then they like to point somewhere else. I'd like to say I agree with Premier Harris. Here's what Premier Harris said about people who do whining about other levels of government: "We suggest that the Premier and this Legislature should turn their energies to fix that which is broken here in the province of Ontario. I tell you this: If the Premier spent as much time working towards making Ontario great again as he spends at pointing fingers and running down other levels of government, then Ontario would be great again." That's Mike Harris talking about Bob Rae. Well, we should apply that to Mike Harris himself.

Now I remember in this House when Mike Harris used to say to the federal government, "You've got to cut." He said to the Mulroney government, when Jean Charest was a minister: "You know, you've got to be cutting your expenditures. The deficit's out of control." I think Jean Charest agreed with Mulroney then because he was part of the Mulroney government. He agreed with that.

Mike Harris wanted them to cut tremendously. The Mulroney government, with Jean Charest as a minister, started these cuts in transfers to the provinces, when Floyd Laughren was the Treasurer of this province. He will remember that well. So Mike Harris said, "Look, when I develop the Common Sense Revolution, I'm going to take into account any potential cuts that are coming." He took that into account and he still made the promise, during the last election campaign, "Certainly, I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." That was Mike Harris who said that during the election campaign in May 1995. He had taken that into account already.

The provinces said to the federal government: "We don't want designated funding. What we want is block funding. Give us the money and we will decide how to spend it." So the federal government transfers money to the provincial government. What do Mike Harris and the revolutionaries do with that money? They give it away in a tax cut. They don't take that money from the federal government and put it into health care. Instead, they give it away in a tax cut which benefits the richest people in our society the most.

Boy, if I were making $300,000 a year, I would be delighted with that tax cut that's coming, because that's what the tax cut is all about. That's what they're doing with those federal transfer payments. They're taking that money and they're whisking it right through in a tax cut for the rich instead of spending it on health care as they should be spending it. That's deplorable, although in some ridings it's different, and I know some of the Conservative backbenchers must be beside themselves over this.

Ernie Eves, who's the Treasurer and the good buddy of Mike Harris, sits next to him, gets a special deal for Burk's Falls. Maybe my friend Mr Spina should go to speak to Ernie Eves and see how he got that special deal for Burk's Falls, and try to get that for his area.

I want to finally quote Mr Harris again -- I really liked him in opposition -- about this whining thing. Here's what he said, more about whining about other levels of government -- and he's talking about the Rae government in this case -- "So it actually is a disgrace when the Premier of the province...spends his time whining, pointing fingers, blaming others. That is not the legacy, that is not the history, of this province that I grew up in and that will not be the legacy and the history of this province when we bring common sense back to it."

You know something? Mike Harris was right when he said that. He's telling you people to quit whining and pointing fingers where they shouldn't be pointed and get after your cabinet colleagues, get after Tom Long and Guy Giorno; they're the ones who have all the power in this government.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Spina, you have two minutes to sum up.

Mr Spina: I want to thank all of the colleagues here in the House, the members for Kingston and The Islands, Cochrane South, Niagara South, Windsor-Riverside, London Centre, Simcoe East, Durham East and St Catharines. We thank you all for your comments, and particularly the parliamentary assistant, Tim Hudak, who reiterated the direction of the ministry. We know that the equitable funding is in the process of being delivered, and I'm very thankful for the direction that we are headed in.

I wanted to address the point that both the opposition parties brought up, which I think was a good point, but I take issue with one comment and that was about us speaking out of both sides of our mouth. You see, the reason that many of us, and me in particular, voted against the member for Windsor-Sandwich's resolution was because of one particular clause. What she said in her resolution was that any savings as a result of restructuring within that area would be reinvested in that region, and that was the fundamental problem I had.

The reason I had that problem I think is probably best articulated by the member for London Centre, who said that building hospitals is not the measure of health care, it's the delivery of services. If you reduce the amount of bricks and mortar in a place like Windsor, which has a catchment of 260,000 for hospitals, to an area like Brampton with a catchment of 320,000 and one hospital, that's the purpose of restructuring.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

Mr Spina has moved private member's resolution number 53. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, please rise.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The motion is carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. This House will resume at 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1203 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I would like to remind the House of an important election promise made to persons with disabilities by the Premier in 1995, which he has since ignored. He promised that he would pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in his first term, towards which he has done nothing. He has refused to meet with a broad-based community coalition called the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, after having promised to work with them on this important and necessary legislation.

Instead of delivering new resources to overcome barriers facing people with disabilities in Ontario, he has done just the opposite by cutting previous funding for this important social purpose.

One year ago today this House unanimously passed a resolution supporting the enactment of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This government has done nothing to date. The disabled community is calling on the Premier to fulfil his commitment. Representatives of the disabled community are here today. They deserve answers as to why the government has not acted on its promise to them. They have every right to expect that work will begin today.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I too wish to call on the government to pass a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act as soon as possible and to call on the Premier to meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee.

When the Premier wrote to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee during the last election promising this new legislation, he also promised new funds for accommodating the needs of persons with disabilities. But what is the record of this government? It's an appalling record which has made people with disabilities the first and worst victims of budget cuts.

Their red tape task force demands a legislative reduction of the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities in the Human Rights Code. They've cut funding to the Human Rights Commission, which has led to disability discrimination cases being turned away in record numbers. They've cut funding to local school boards in a way that has led to the reduction in services for students with disabilities. They've abolished a fund within the Ontario public service dedicated to removing systemic barriers facing groups such as persons with disabilities.

The list goes on and on and every item is just another nail in the coffin of the government's dead promise to persons with disabilities.

BRIAN HARRISON

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It is with deep regret that I must stand in the House today to inform the members of the recent passing of Metro Toronto councillor Brian Harrison. Last week Scarborough residents lost one of our city's most respected politicians following his long battle with cancer.

Brian Harrison served Scarborough well for 34 years. He was first elected in 1963 as school trustee of ward 7 in Scarborough. In 1965 Brian was elected to Scarborough council and in 1967 he was elected Scarborough controller, at which he served until 1982. In 1988 he was elected Metro Toronto councillor for Scarborough City Centre, at which he served until his recent passing.

During his years of public service, Brian served on numerous elected government committees. In addition to these, he was appointed to a number of public boards and commissions, including the Metro zoo management board, the Toronto Transit Commission and the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

Over the years Brian developed a reputation as a staunch supporter of Scarborough and Scarborough residents and was respected for always having a thorough and deep knowledge of the issues. He was widely viewed as one of the city's hardest-working politicians.

His partner, Adrianna, his children Scott, Cindy, Karen, Sean, Lynn and Cheryl, their mother, Georgina, his grandchildren Mark and Blake and his sister, Carol, survive Brian. Brian and his family have requested that donations be made to the chairman's fund of the Zoological Society of Metropolitan Toronto. Thank you.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My statement today is directed at the Minister of Health. In a recent

article in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal Beth Chase talks about the inexcusable treatment her father, Charles William Clarkson, received as a result of funding cuts to our health care system.

I quote: "I am sure that my father's faith in our country was a comfort to him knowing that when he was elderly, sick and disabled, his needs would be cared for. Sadly, he was greatly disappointed."

During Mr Clarkson's last stay in hospital his doctors decided he was not well enough to return home. The problem was that there were no long-term-care beds available, so Mr Clarkson was required to start paying immediately $40.29 per day for a hospital bed, just about what his pension allowed, no money for his apartment.

Mr Clarkson was always employed. He fought in the Second World War for our freedom. Never once did he receive government assistance. Then in the months preceding his death he lost his vision, his wife and finally, thanks to the government cutbacks, he suffered the most severe blow of all: He was robbed of his dignity as he was forced to worry about financial pressures.

There's a list of 400 people waiting for long-term-care beds in Thunder Bay. Until this wait is eliminated, the $40.29 should be on hold. This government has cut hospital services in our community and there's not a single person who is convinced that this will not affect patient care, which our cash-strapped hospitals are doing their best to provide. We now know that the true cost of this government's restructuring is a loss of dignity, and that cost is too high.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I also wish to mark this one-year anniversary of my colleague from London Centre's resolution, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The resolution was passed unanimously. The Minister of Citizenship promised to pass this law within its first term. The first term is almost half over and there has been no public consultation, no draft legislation, no statement of principles, not even a commitment on a process to consult with the public to develop this law. Why the delay, Minister?

This government says it wants to get people working, yet every day that it delays on its pledge to pass the Ontarians with Disabilities Act just extends the extraordinary unemployment which persons with disabilities face and adds to the public debt. While the government drags its feet, more barriers are created, more opportunities to hire persons with disabilities are lost and more persons with disabilities are forced to remain on social assistance when they would rather be working.

It's time for the government to pass the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Start now with a thorough public consultation across Ontario. Let it be open to the public and fully accessible to persons with disabilities. Let's agree that the new law will achieve a barrier-free society for persons with disabilities by the year 2000. Let's agree that the law will be strong and effective and contain strong enforcement provisions.

Premier, what are you waiting for? The Ontarians with Disabilities Act committee is here today waiting to speak with you, ready to help you fulfil your commitment.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS MONTH

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): May is Multiple Sclerosis Month and I'm pleased to be able to stand to recognize this very important occasion. Multiple sclerosis is a disease of the central nervous system that affects more than 50,000 Canadians, and women are more frequently affected than men in a ratio of three to two.

Our government's reinvestment of $170 million has helped many people with MS to live independently through the development of flexible service arrangements in home care and attendant care, as well as greater ability for these services to reflect the individual needs and condition of the consumer. In fact, part of the minister's announcement of $8.7 million in Niagara last month will go to help people with MS in the Niagara region.

Each year the MS society hosts the carnation campaign, where people receive carnations in exchange for donations for the MS society. This year's campaign was held on May 8, 9 and 10. Premier Harris himself helped kick off the campaign by handing out carnations at the Yonge and Bloor subway station.

The goal for Metro Toronto was to raise $100,000 and I'm pleased to announce today that they have surpassed that goal. The campaign so far has raised $102,000 and there still are more donations to come. I'd like to offer my congratulations to the 1,200 volunteers who handed out carnations at shopping malls, retail locations and TTC stations. Thank you as well to the many people who have made donations and help the MS Society surpass its goal.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee just held a "face the disability community" session here at Queen's Park. Both opposition parties were represented and spoke to this group. There are hundreds of people today in this building -- none of them in here because of solidarity. Because this particular Legislature is not accessible, they are in different rooms throughout this building watching us on TV today.

What was disgraceful about today is that not one of the 81 members of the government side had the guts to face the community, not one of you. The Speaker had the courage to meet with them previously, but not one of you had the guts to come there and speak to the disabled community, look them in the eye and tell them why you have reneged on your commitment to pass the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, why you and your members, your minister, your Premier, have not had the gumption to follow through on what was a pretty clear commitment two years ago when you were looking for votes in this province, when you said, "We're going to pass the Ontarians with Disabilities Act."

What we have seen is two years of refusals by the Premier to meet with them. What we've seen is two years of inaction. What we have seen is a bunch of gutless wimps who will not meet the community today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. There's parliamentary language, and I don't think "gutless wimps" falls within that.

Mr Agostino: I will withdraw "wimps." Clearly, what they have done today, the betrayal -- there are over 200 people here today. I challenge you to go downstairs after this, meet them in the rooms, meet them in the lobby and tell them why you've betrayed them.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I appreciate your tenor and I understand your emotional involvement in the issue, but you must maintain parliamentary language. Although you may have withdrawn -- I would you ask that you withdraw the "gutless wimps" charge, please.

Mr Agostino: If parliamentary tradition says I must, I will.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I too want to deal with a broken promise, a promise M. Harris made in 1995 to introduce the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. What it clearly points out to me is that this government has unequal treatment for different sectors of the population: It treats the powerful with great respect; it gives developers respect by dealing with the development charges; it transfers to landlords a great deal of money from the poor to the wealthy; but when it comes to dealing with people with disabilities, this government is in contempt of their needs.

People with disabilities represent 15% to 16% of the population. They want and they need, and we argue for, a bill that deals with unfair barriers as they relate to people with disabilities and access to jobs, access to housing, access to public transit, access to schools and to this Legislature. M. Harris promised that in 1995.

The member for London Centre, in a resolution, attempted to remind the minister about his obligation and his promise and has failed in that as well. He has completely disregarded them in that regard. At some point, this minister, this government have got to deal with people with disabilities.

BUDGET

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The people of Wellington were very pleased to see several positive measures for rural Ontario in the provincial budget last week. First, the budget for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will be maintained for this year at $405 million, up from $400 million last year. I believe credit is due to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for his leadership and commitment in advocating on behalf of rural Ontario and the extent to which he underscored to the provincial government the importance of maintaining the OMAFRA budget.

Ontario's farm organizations also deserve credit for their united efforts in speaking forcefully on behalf of Ontario's farmers on this matter. It is very reassuring that the provincial government recognizes the importance of agriculture to our economy and went even further by increasing the ministry budget.

Other positive initiatives for agriculture in the budget included:

The creation of a three-year, $30 million rural job strategy. Three million dollars will be spent this summer to create 3,000 jobs for young people in rural Ontario. This rural job strategy has been designed to stimulate job creation, promote investment, develop export growth and increase business competitiveness in rural Ontario.

The extension of the retail sales tax rebate on building materials for farm buildings for yet another year.

These initiatives, taken together, show how the decisions we make in government can have a direct, positive impact on the lives of the people we serve and that there continues to be a role for a strong provincial government bringing forward innovative programs designed to meet the needs of the people in Ontario.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I rise on a point of privilege to indicate to the House that there are several hundred numbers of the public here today who have been invited by the member for London Centre, myself and the member for Hamilton East. I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs getting up and making much of looking around in the public galleries and not seeing those several hundred people that I'm referring to.

Interjections: What's the point?

Ms Lankin: That's the point. If I may indicate --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Your point of privilege is in order. It's not in order to comment on other members.

Ms Lankin: Fair enough. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, I know that you met with them and I know that you gave an undertaking if members of the three parties and the Board of Internal Economy would look at this issue and deal with this issue, we might be able to move to an expeditious resolution.

I just want to give notice, Mr Speaker, that at the end of question period I will be rising to seek unanimous consent for this Legislature to immediately move into an emergency debate on the issue of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act this afternoon, and I hope that will receive support from all three parties.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent is obviously in order, and at the proper time, of course, I will entertain that unanimous consent.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: The same point of order? I just ruled on the point of order. This has to be different, a different point of privilege.

The Speaker: You seem to be entering into debate. We're going to seek unanimous consent to go to that debate, I think, later, but it's not a point of privilege. How many accessible spots there are in this building isn't a point of privilege. It's not a point of order. It's a point of interest, but it's not any of those first two.

Mr Agostino: I guess the concern I have is, how do we address the fact that hundreds of people are sitting in rooms today --

The Speaker: You're going to address it exactly the way the member for Beaches-Woodbine is proposing to address it. That's perfectly in order when she asks for unanimous consent for an emergency debate. Beyond that, nothing else is really in order.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to inform the House that this will be the last day the pages will be working with us and I think we'd all like to extend our personal thanks.

Applause.

The Speaker: There you are. Thank you very much. Standing ovations are a rare thing in this House, so you should be duly honoured.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. Ontario was surprised to hear that you're considering fingerprinting every single individual in the province of Ontario. For many in Ontario it's quite a frightening thought. It's a thought of the state watching their every move. It's not acceptable to many people in Ontario and is frankly the ultimate in the bully tactic.

The question to you is, will you put the people's minds at ease and simply say that you're not planning to pursue this dangerous move?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We've never considered fingerprinting anybody in the province, other than I gather the police do fingerprint criminals. I think that's the common practice in Canada and around the world.

I know that Toronto has been studying thumb-imaging or finger-imaging as a method of preventing fraud. There have been some concerns about that, although I understand 60% of welfare recipients in a survey said they supported it if it would stop fraud. There have been some concerns should it just be used for welfare as opposed to perhaps in generalities. As you know, the Minister of Health has been leading an interministerial team to look at ways that we can look at the various programs in preventing fraud and that type of imaging has been one of the things they've been looking at.

I appreciate your viewpoint. I guess your advice is, "Don't look at anything to solve fraud." We, however, think we should continue to look at the best available options, and of course, we've made no decisions.

Mr Phillips: My 94-year-old mother-in-law lives with us. She has lived her entire life as a law-abiding individual. She values her privacy. She values her dignity and her self-worth. The thought of your ordering her to go down to some office and have her fingerprint taken so she can qualify for health care is objectionable. It's objectionable to her; it's objectionable to me.

Will you put her mind at ease, my mind at ease and the minds of the people of Ontario at ease that you are not considering fingerprinting, finger imaging, for my 94-year-old mother-in-law?

Hon Mr Harris: There is a huge difference between what the Toronto welfare and social services department is looking at and fingerprinting. I would say to you that today we do insist that to get health care benefits in the province of Ontario, somebody submit to a card. We insist that for a driver's licence you actually get your picture taken. I suppose you might call that a mug shot; I call it a form of identification to ensure that this is exactly the person who should be driving.

There are a number of people who are looking at ways of identification to stop fraud, and I believe it is incumbent upon this government to continue to evaluate any new techniques or methods to prevent fraud that are not intrusive. This is not anything new. We've been looking at this for a year or so. You have heard from the minister, you have heard from the Chair of Management Board, and you understand what the social services department of Toronto is trying to do to prevent fraud.

Mr Phillips: My 94-year-old mother-in-law has never been involved in fraud. She's not someone who needs you watching over her. She's not someone who is abusing the government -- your government. She's a decent individual who simply wants her privacy. The question remains that it's you, not anyone else: "Harris Mulls Fingerprint ID for all Ontarians," "Harris Backs ID Scans." You have to live with your own words and deal with your own actions.

I ask you once again, will you put my mother-in-law's mind at ease, will you put the minds of the people of Ontario at ease, that you are not going to step over this very dangerous line? Will you assure the people of Ontario that you are not going to insist on all the people of Ontario having their fingerprints taken so you can watch over them?

Hon Mr Harris: I can assure the member that no measure would ever be taken by this government unless there was 100% complete assurance from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, not our government, that nobody's privacy is under any threat. Your mother-in-law can take assurance from that.

Secondly, your mother-in-law can take assurance from something else: that every dollar taken in fraud from the health care system, from the welfare system or from any of the other government entitlement programs, every dollar being taken in fraud comes from your mother-in-law, and she can rest assured that we're interested in stopping that too.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday the chairperson of the Ottawa General Hospital, Mr Pierre Richard -- no stranger and no enemy to this provincial government -- came to this place to tell members of the assembly and members of the press that your Health Services Restructuring Commission's estimated savings from the dramatic restructuring of hospitals in Ottawa are wildly overstated. Mr Richard said that in Ottawa the commission has overstated the potential savings by approximately 70%.

He went on to indicate, and I quote the chairman of the Ottawa General Hospital, "The commission's numbers are wrong, and it will create a crisis in patient care." What do you have to say to the health care community in Ottawa-Carleton about this difference over numbers?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the honourable member for the question. I'll answer it the same way I answered it when I was asked in this House yesterday the exact question. That is that the administrators of the hospitals that had the press conference yesterday indicated during that press conference that they had already submitted this data to the commission before the deadline. That's why there is this legislative process to ensure that the proper data is being used by the commission and submitted by the groups that hold that data.

I think the process has been accessed by the proper authorities and the commission will take that data into consideration as it makes its determinations.

Mr Conway: The process. Two or three weeks ago you, Minister, went to Owen Sound and you had some very interesting things to say about hospitals in Grey-Bruce when you weren't talking about gun control which, according to the Sun Times report, occupied a lot more of your address.

You were dropping, according to this press report, heavy hints about what was not going to happen in Grey-Bruce to hospitals like Meaford, the same kind of hints that the Alliston press tells us you've been dropping at home in south Simcoe about what's not going to happen to the hospital in your own constituency, heavy hints; no talk about the district health council, no talk about the commission. "Trust me, I'm Jim Wilson. You people can trust that there's nothing terrible going to happen up in Meaford or down in Alliston."

And you have the nerve to tell the people in Ottawa, your friend Pierre Richard and our friend from Vanier, that they've got to play this by a different game, by a different set of rules? Whom do you think you are kidding?

Hon Mr Wilson: I've made it very clear that this government recognizes the difference between multiple-hospital cities and single-hospital towns, and we make no apology, after we were informed by the Health Services Restructuring Commission and numerous DHCs that the previous government sent DHCs out with no benchmarks at all for rural Ontario, no guidance at all for rural Ontario, single-hospital towns.

A panel of experts is putting together a policy framework for the commission and for district health councils. It's long overdue. I regret previous governments didn't do it. There are travel distances; there are weather conditions; there are greater difficulties in rural Ontario to access health care than there is in multiple-hospital large cities.

Mr Conway: In my home community of Pembroke the commission has already had to admit that its initial estimates about savings were off by at least 30%. Women's College Hospital in Toronto has advanced information to suggest that the commission's numbers about savings are off by $50 million, something in the order of 80%. Yesterday we had the group from Ottawa saying that in their estimate, based on independent analysis done by tier-one accounting groups like Deloitte and Touche, the commission's numbers about estimated savings are off by a factor of 70% in the national capital region.

My question to you is simply this: Should the people in places like Ottawa, Pembroke, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Toronto just tell their accountants and people like Deloitte and Touche to get lost and, rather, they should hire Ernie Eves to go and beat the stuffing out of you and pretend that all of these places that I've just mentioned are just like Burk's Falls and Alliston and, yes, Bill Murdoch Land in north Grey?

Hon Mr Wilson: It's an extremely unfair proposition. It's mixing apples and oranges. The commission itself, under the leadership of Dr Duncan Sinclair, has said many, many times -- and you are free to meet with him at any time you like, Mr Conway, to bring your points directly to the commission. You are free to do that.

I didn't see any submissions in Ottawa from the Liberal Party. I didn't see you avail yourselves of the process. I see a lot of puffery in here, but there is a very serious legislative process out there. You are free to avail yourselves of it, as those responsible hospitals in Ottawa have done, by providing the commission with up-to-date data.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Premier: One year ago today my colleague the member for London Centre moved a private member's motion. It was passed unanimously by this House, including 25 members of your own caucus. That motion had two points: first, that you keep your personal promise made on May 24, 1995, in a letter from you to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee that your government would enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within your first term of office; second, that your government work together with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop this legislation.

Premier, members and supporters of that committee are here today because nothing has happened. Your minister met only once, almost a year ago, with the committee. That's the last they heard from your government until you wrote to say you would not meet with them again today. All you have done in a year is to study the US legislation. Premier, will you keep your word and honour your promise to introduce an Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You bet I will.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): That's an interesting answer. We're pleased to hear that assurance yet again, but we'd like to see some action. Unfortunately, today we're celebrating two years of inaction, two years since your promise, another year of inaction since the resolution was passed.

Premier, I showed this to your minister in a question a few weeks ago in this House. This is a leaked document, a business plan from your Minister of Citizenship. Nowhere in there is there any reference to an Ontarians with Disabilities Act -- no plans; nothing being done on that. In fact, we have a quote in the paper from a ministry spokesperson saying the government's not sold on that kind of legislation.

Now that you've said you're going to introduce it, and we know you haven't consulted with the community, why don't you give us some time lines? When are you going to meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee and when will we see that bill introduced in this Legislature?

Hon Mr Harris: It is so obvious but I guess I'll have to repeat it for the members: For five years you and your party did nothing in this whole area and for legislation, which is one of the reasons we committed to do so, and to do so within our first term of office, and that commitment has not changed.

As you will be aware, the minister has met with a number of people on a number of occasions. As well, Mr Lepofsky and the ODA committee have known and have been told that the first priority of the ministry is the equal opportunity plan and the initiative for vulnerable adults, and those two initiatives have been launched. The policy work has begun on other aspects of our disability access strategy. I can tell you that during a meeting last summer, quite frankly, the minister invited Mr Lepofsky and the ODA committee to participate in the development of the equal opportunity plan and the vulnerable adults initiatives. Mr Lepofksy, very politely I might add, declined that invitation.

However, there are a number of initiatives that have been undertaken. We committed through consultation and reviewing other legislation that we felt --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's no wonder to any of us that the disabled community is very disillusioned and finds it very difficult to believe this Premier when he says he will bring this act forward. They have seen occasion after occasion where this Premier and his minister have stated they have taken positions that they have not in fact taken. It's quite disgraceful for you to stand up and make those claims when you know those people are in this building. They will be furious with you for saying that.

You say we did nothing. Well, there's an area where we did one thing that appears to be eroding in front of our very eyes. We made a policy that any transportation system that got capital dollars from our government would go ahead with accessible buses. Your Minister of Transportation has given permission to Ottawa and Mississauga not to buy those, partly because the buses aren't available, but he hasn't required them to give lifts as the Metropolitan Toronto bus services have had to do when faced with that problem. There is example after example --

The Speaker: Member for London Centre, thank you very much. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I tell you that our record, compared to the five years of inaction of the NDP -- you have had, as a party, the absolute best rhetoric on the disabled and the least effective action record of any political party in Ontario's history. In fact it is disgraceful.

When I think of how this government, and the government of Ontario under different parties, including, I might add, in this case, even the Liberal Party, have done more than the New Democratic Party, the party of all rhetoric and no action on this issue, how you have enough nerve to stand in your place and ask these questions today I do not know.

This minister has taken a number of initiatives -- so has the government -- $30 million over the next five years, pilot projects, college and university level, help students with learning disabilities realize their full potential, additional $15 million annually in community and social services to help more families with care for their children who have developmental disabilities. Yes, we committed to bring forward

an act and we committed to research and think it out and do it carefully --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Minister of Education: A few weeks ago, the Minister of Education and Training refused to answer our questions about who will pay the upfront costs of amalgamating school boards.

We know that to amalgamate literally dozens of school boards across the province there will be some fairly upfront costs. The budget estimates are now out and we see that there is no fund for the Ministry of Education and Training to pay the upfront costs of school board amalgamation. Despite your claim to have frozen grants to school boards, they have experienced, on average, a 5% cut this year. Now it seems they will also have to cover these upfront costs of your school board amalgamation scheme. Where will that money come from? From their operating budgets. What do their operating budgets cover? They cover classroom education.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Hampton: Can you tell us now what the upfront costs of your school board amalgamations will be, and where will the money come if it's not going to come from classroom budgets?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Let me say to the leader of the third party that we announced some time before this year that we would have a stable funding system this year, that we would not ask school boards for further savings reductions, and we have not. We were able to announce a few weeks ago that we'd have a stable funding system for education in the 1997-98 school year so that school boards could provide all the programs and all the services they provide to students now to students during that time period. We have already announced that.

We have also said in our legislation and publicly since the introduction of Bill 104 that we specifically have put the Education Improvement Commission in place to help school boards during the transition. We know there will be some costs during that transition and the EIC is in place now, with the passage of Bill 104, to take care of those transition issues.

The member opposite has probably had a look at what those transitions might be. He realizes that going from three directors of education to one director of education, and from three departments taking care of capital to one department taking care of capital, these changes will --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Supplementary, third party leader.

Mr Hampton: This minister is trying to skate the same circle as the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has had to acknowledge in the last few weeks that it's going to cost about $450 million in severance pay to lay off nurses and throw them out in the street and money to close hospitals.

This minister refuses to acknowledge that it's going to cost severance money to lay people off, that it's going to cost money up front to amalgamate school boards. He hasn't answered the question: Where is that money coming from? Your ministry estimates don't show a fund to cover these amalgamation costs. The only conclusion we can then come to is that it will have to come out of school board operating budgets. School board operating budgets pay for classroom education. Some boards estimate $2 million in one year for the severance and other amalgamation costs. If the money isn't going to come from classrooms, where is it going to come from? You owe the children of this province an answer.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Once again it's disappointing that the leader of the third party would completely skip over one very obvious fact: School board operating budgets, collectively across the province, right now pay for $150 million worth of administration costs that will not be there post the amalgamation of these boards. We'll go in some cases from having three or four directors of education to having one director of education. We'll be reducing the cost of the bureaucracy, reducing the cost of the administration of our school system so we can focus resources in the classroom. The Education Improvement Commission is there, part of Bill 104, to help us go through this transition period.

I think the member opposite, if he looks at this, looks at the way we are going about this transition period, looks at the stable funding to make sure students aren't affected during this transition period, will see that this is a very reasoned, thought-through transition that will take us to a new and better system of education in Ontario.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): A thought-through transition which will only take eight months and which the $150 million in savings the minister refers to includes a cut of about $9 million in education supplies to classrooms, not administrative savings.

Earlier this week the Minister of Education and Training spoke to a group of parents at Miller's Grove public school in Mississauga. He told them they would be pleased with an announcement he would make shortly. We expect it will probably be tomorrow, since there won't be any question period next week. He said that along with announcing the new funding formula for education, he would be announcing a reimplementation of junior kindergarten for September 1998.

Obviously we would welcome the reintroduction of junior kindergarten, since it benefits all children and parents want it, but it costs money. You've cut boards' budgets, you're taking away their taxation rights, you're going to make them pay for the amalgamation plan. What else is going to have to be cut in order to pay for the reintroduction of junior kindergarten, which you cut before?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I wonder whose interests the member for Algoma thinks are served by putting things forward as he has today. We are not going to have to reintroduce junior kindergarten because this party, this government, has kept the promises we made in the Common Sense Revolution. We are funding junior kindergarten now at the same level as other programs in the education system. We will continue to do that. We have already said there will be a stable funding system for all the programs, including junior kindergarten, from 1997-98.

Yes, we will be bringing out a new allocation model. Yes, the province will be assuming its responsibility in funding education so every student in this province has an opportunity to a first-class education, something your government failed to do. Your government created second-class students in this province. Our government is going to clean that up and make sure that every student in this province has an opportunity to a first-class education. I for one am proud of that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We understand that the government is preparing to introduce massive changes to the current social assistance system. A widely rumoured change to eligibility requirements could have a terrible impact on the lives of people with disabilities. The disabled community is expecting that you will be changing your working definition of "disability" in order to limit the number of people eligible for social assistance.

Minister, will you guarantee that whatever policy you finally announce, no person with a disability who is presently receiving assistance will see his or her benefits either taken away or reduced, and will you please assure us that the future of people who acquire disabilities will not be an even greater struggle than it is now?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member will realize, one of the commitments we have made is to move people with disabilities off the welfare system. That program is not designed for their unique needs. We have been designing a new income support program for people with disabilities which will be much more generous and much more flexible than what they currently receive on welfare. Second, we're also designing a new supports to employment program so that those people with disabilities who can work and want to work will indeed be able to do so with the appropriate supports.

Mr Morin: Minister, let me remind you of your government's pre-election commitment that funding to seniors and the disabled will not be cut. That's what you said. We know so well your track record.

I have a document here produced by your own ministry and obtained through a freedom of information request dealing with your proposed welfare changes. It says: "It is discouraging and sad to see how the cost containment proposals reflect a certain naïveté and lack of compassion towards persons with disabilities. These individuals are struggling with a shrinking FBA allowance, `sucked' increasingly now by new medication costs, user fees" etc.

Your own bureaucrats are saddened and discouraged. The community is telling you that this is dangerous. Let me tell you what you are doing. You are depriving these people of human dignity.

I ask you again: Will you fulfil your election promise and guarantee that aid for persons with disabilities will not be cut?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We are not cutting the program for those with disabilities; what we are doing is enhancing it. We are taking them off --

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): You are taking them off the system.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Perhaps the honourable member across the way thinks that welfare is the place to have people with disabilities. I disagree. Individuals with disabilities have unique and special needs. We have spent the last year consulting with the disabled community because we want to have a program that --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, I'm warning you and I won't warn you again. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We've spent the last year consulting with the disabled community because we believe they need better service from social support, not what they currently have. They need a service that meets their needs. They need a service that will help them, those who can and those who wish to, to get back into the workforce with the appropriate supports. We are not cutting the program.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I want to ask the Minister of Health about one aspect of the tentative agreement he has reached with the doctors. That is this new committee, the new health care delivery systems committee, which is going to consist of three members of the Ontario Medical Association, three members appointed by the Ministry of Health, three members appointed by the Ontario Hospital Association and one member appointed by the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

As you know, the mandate of this new committee is to study and make recommendations with respect to models for new health care systems, including the delivery of physician services to insured persons within such systems, and then it goes on. Some would say this is a recipe for simply entrenching the fee-for-service system and the ability of doctors to control all the changes that are happening in the restructuring of the health sector.

The real tragedy is that you haven't added to this committee the other players in the field. Where are the rest of the integrated health care professionals, long-term care, those who are nurses, those who are working in the community part? You've entrenched --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for London Centre. Minister of Health.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I think it's a very good question by the honourable member, but I'd ask the honourable member to think about this as the physicians and government agreement, and that's why it talks about physicians and government in its committees.

We have a number of other committees dealing with integrated health systems, including the Joint Provincial Nursing Council, which is taking a lead; the Health Services Restructuring Commission; the JPPC, the joint policy and planning committee, which is hospitals and the Ministry of Health.

Integrated health systems and integrated delivery systems are on every association's agenda. Last week I met with the alliance which came together to fight your MSA proposal, which includes the nurses and the doctors and the hospitals. Twenty associations are on that alliance and they have a committee consulting also with the ministry on integrated health delivery systems, integrated health systems.

Right now the ministry is trying to take all that advice -- we've had a lot of meetings about it -- and put together a policy framework with input from everybody.

Mrs Boyd: Anyone hearing you would know that you and your ministry are still looking at health care in its various silos and not getting all the players at the table. You made a commitment. You announced last fall that your primary reform measure in this would be the reform of primary care. It got put off until the spring.

Now we learn that this new committee is going to take the place of the work that was being done on primary health care, that you've extended Dr Wendy Graham's appointment for another year, even though she was supposed to have finished her work by now and even though everyone who talks to you about the integration of health care says that closures of hospitals, all the work that's being done, doesn't make sense unless we have the first step: primary health care, how it is going to be delivered and how that fit into restructuring.

Now you've created yet another committee that is going to take this function unto itself and we're going to have to wait again, and meanwhile hospitals are closing. Minister, you don't have a plan. This is a mess. Why don't you just admit it and go back to the drawing board?

Hon Mr Wilson: For the first time in the history of this province we have a plan and a vision for health care. If the honourable member would stop the puffery in here and actually went and visited the alliance or the nurses or toured a hospital rather than being caged up here at Queen's Park, she would know that our partners out there agree with the plan and are very much part of the development of implementation plans across the province.

It's an exciting time. People are working together. We were out making an announcement in Peel today, several million dollars, $11 million more for community-based care there, long-term care services, to recognize the growth and aging population in the 905 area, particularly Peel -- yesterday, Mississauga -- and all the providers in the room were very pleased with the approach the government is taking and the attitude out there is not the attitude of the honourable member.

The attitude out there is, "Work together, pulling the oars in the same direction, and let's truly develop a patient-driven and patient-centred system." That is the vision of the Ministry of Health; that is the vision of our partners.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Under the previous government it was identified that the septic system most commonly used in Kent and Essex counties did not conform with the design requirements of regulation 358 of the Environmental Protection Act. Since this situation came to light, on behalf of my constituents in Chatham and Kent I've been following the process very closely. Has there been any progress made in resolving this issue of partially raised-bed septic tanks?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): While to many members of this Legislature this is not an important issue, it is to people in the southwest part of Ontario. I would like to thank the member because of his concern over this.

There are about 1,500 of these particular systems in operation at this time, but back in 1995 as a result of a review of the

part VIII program -- that's the septic tanks program -- we found these particular systems were not meeting the requirements of regulation 358. As a result, a study of the performance in Essex county has been completed by two divisions in my ministry and the Essex Regional Conservation Authority on the system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how these beds function in terms of ensuring that they are not a risk to public health or the environment.

Mr Carroll: Now that the study's been completed, Minister, could you tell us, have you made a decision about the future viability of these evapobed septic systems?

Hon Mr Sterling: As intended, this ministry initiated the research study into these systems. The ministry has found that the cumulative effects of these evapobed systems will harm the environment and risk surface water contamination. The ministry will not be approving the use of newly installed evapobeds. However, existing beds will be considered in compliance as long as they are functioning.

I am pleased to announce that we are modifying regulation 358 to allow the use of new technologies that are cost-competitive and will better protect the environment. These alternative technologies are intended to be used both on small and large lots. In the interim, before the passage of the regulation, which we are posting today, we will allow the alternative technologies to be used for smaller lots. The technical report --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask you about the deal that you have tentatively arrived at with the province's doctors. I just want to recap for you how you plunged this province into a year of anxiety and uncertainty. You went after the doctors, saying that they would have no liability coverage, that clawbacks would be larger, that caps would be smaller, that they couldn't have representation from the OMA. In this recent agreement, you've given up all those things.

We went through a year of anxiety and hardship, of obstetricians not being available, of work actions, because you had to prove a point. That point today seems to be very minimal indeed, and the confidence of doctors you can't buy back.

You have put together a deal that apparently will cost us some $500 million per annum. We want to know from you today, in explicit terms, how are you going to pay for this $500 million per year? Is it going to come from additional closings of hospitals, from layoffs of nurses, or will you be delisting and making patients pay for the cost of your errors and the aggravation you've caused doctors over the past year?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): It will be no surprise to the honourable member that I disagree with the premise of his question. First of all, I don't know where he gets this huge figure for the cost of the agreement; I don't know on what basis you have been doing your research. But I will say that a number of things have been accomplished in both the interim agreement and this final agreement. I think we've brought stability to the profession in terms of income stability, and we've recognized something that the Ontario Medical Association on behalf of its members wanted recognized for many years, the growing and aging population, and that's what the 1.5% is.

We have a committee now to examine alternatives to the current malpractice insurance system. That's a huge, huge change in attitude and a huge step forward for both taxpayers and the Ontario Medical Association.

In the interim agreement, for the first time there's an agreement and a framework to deal with the underserviced area problem by making sure that there is a disincentive for new graduates to go into overserviced. That's historic and was well worth the blood, sweat and tears.

Mr Kennedy: I don't think there's an expectant mother in this province who had to go through the anxiety you artificially created, as you worked your way on to the dartboards of doctors across this province, who thinks it's worthwhile to come around again and provide to doctors virtually everything they were asking you to do over a year and a half ago. We're no further ahead, and people want to know how the quality of health care is going to be maintained.

In estimates for this year you have provided for $239 million to pay for a deal that just in this next year is going to cost you at least $400 million. Answer the question. You're the Minister of Health. You've decided to give more to doctors. You have to tell us where that is coming from. Table today what this deal in your estimation is really going to cost and how you're going to pay for it. Will you make patients pay for services that currently get paid for by the government, or will you hurt more hospitals and lay off more nurses to pay for this deal and your bumbling of the handling of doctors' affairs in this province?

Hon Mr Wilson: There is no money in this deal that would enhance the fees that doctors currently get. There is a possibility in the third year, if they find efficiencies in the

schedule of benefits, to apply those savings, the same thing we're doing with hospitals and others.

Where there is money in this deal is 1.5% to recognize the growing and aging population. Is the honourable member suggesting that we should turn people away from doctors' offices and not deal with their health care needs? If the honourable member is suggesting that, then let him get up and put that on the table. I'd be happy to have that debate with you any time.

CARE HOMES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Your tenant ejection act beats up on the most vulnerable. People who live in care homes are the elderly, the sick and the disabled, yet

section 93 of your bill gives landlords new ways to evict them. Tenants' advocates and many of their organizations that you have defunded say that by singling out people with illnesses or disabilities for special evictions you are violating

section 15 of the Charter of Rights, which guarantees equal treatment under the law. I maintain that your bill goes out of its way to discriminate against the disabled and to throw them out on the street.

Will you amend your bill to ensure that people in care homes get the equal treatment they deserve?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think that's rather a stretch of the act. What we've got in the act is something to ensure that people who are in care homes get the care they need. There comes a time, on occasion, where a resident of a care home may need additional care far beyond what is within the ability of the establishment to provide, so we have put legislation in place that says the care home must find other accommodation for that individual or go to community service groups to bring that service in. It's only when all of those alternatives have been exhausted that somebody could be moved out into a higher care facility.

Mr Marchese: The relationship between an individual and the caregiver is a contractual one, a contract for service. It means that if more service is needed, the solution is not an eviction but rather to have the tenant agree with the caregiver as to the service that is needed.

Your answer doesn't solve that. You are, through

section 93, not furthering the rights of the disabled by making it easier to evict them. Your bill has the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal making decisions about the adequacy of the levels of medical care, assuming that a complaint even gets there. That means the tribunal that's been hired because they know much about the cost to fix a parking garage or replace a roof will be making decisions about the levels of care people need.

Minister, this scares a lot of people. Will you amend your bill so that tenants, not the landlord and not the tribunal, make the decisions about the medical care --

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

Hon Al Leach: What we're doing with this legislation is trying to ensure that the rights of individuals in care homes are protected, just the opposite from what the member is saying. The last thing anybody in our society wants would be to see somebody who's in a care home and in an establishment that doesn't have the ability to provide the level of care that's necessary to provide the service to that individual.

Rather than just have the establishment make the decision, we've said you have to have an organization come in and evaluate that to make sure that if it's possible to have the care brought in from an outside service agency, then they would be required to do that. It's only after all those avenues have been exhausted that the tribunal would make a decision to move somebody into a higher level of care.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. The official start to the tourist season is generally considered to be the Victoria Day weekend, which is this weekend.

In my riding of St Catharines-Brock, particularly in Niagara-on-the-Lake, it certainly is the highlight or the start of the tourism season, especially in Virgil. It starts off with the Virgil stampede, and we have a horse show and line dancing. My wife is involved in line dancing. On Monday night we have the giant fireworks display.

All those who are watching, be sure to come down to Niagara-on-the-Lake this weekend. We have 25,000 people coming this weekend. Certainly it starts off the tourism season. In addition, this time of year it's beautiful in Niagara-on-the-Lake with the blossoms.

Minister, could you --

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

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I would imagine that the member really wanted an answer to a question about how the tourism industry is doing in Ontario. I'm happy to respond to his question.

I have to say that because of our government's attention to the tourism industry and the very good facilities we have in this province, we've had very good statistics on tourism. Overseas travel to Ontario rose by 8.8% in 1996 over 1995. I'm also happy to say that it has increased by 26% in the first two months of this year. Japanese tourists alone have accounted for 49% of that increase.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm giving you the answer. I'm happy to say that these good statistics are very good for economic development and jobs in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would be impossible to have a late show on that question.

Mr Froese: My question really was I wanted to know if the minister knew how to line dance.

As a result of all that activity that you just mentioned, Minister, could you tell us whether employment is on the rise?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm delighted to answer that question. I'm happy to report that Ontario's international tourism deficit in dollar terms actually decreased by 2.1% in 1996 over 1995. Employment in tourism-related industries grew by 1.5% in 1996 and by 2.2% in the first two months of 1997. This is very good news. Accommodation occupancy increased by about 1.5% in 1996 over 1995 and occupancy grew by 2.2% for the two-month period in 1997.

I would like to encourage all Ontarians, as we approach the holiday weekend, to take advantage of the many tourism facilities we have in this province. I'm sure you'll find that they're second to none in the world. I encourage everybody to participate in Ontario tourism.

BUSINESS OCCUPANCY TAX

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Premier. Later on today we're going to be considering third and final reading of Bill 106,

An Act respecting the financing of local government. One of the perceived benefits of this bill is the removal of the business occupancy tax. That is supposed to be a great boon for business, when the actual fact is that the bank towers downtown will have a dramatic reduction of anywhere from $3 million to $5 million,

whereas most small businesses will see an increase from about 30% to about 42%.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has raised this concern and says that most small businesses will see a price increase. Notwithstanding that, the Minister of Finance, in a quote of April 30, says, "This new system will allow cities to set different tax rates for small commercial properties." We have questioned officials at the ministry and they say there is no provision in this act to allow for a differentiation of taxes. Who is right, your minister or the officials in the ministry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You're into a technical area that I would defer to the minister when he comes back. But I would say this: The request to remove the business occupancy tax from business came first from CFIB. They felt it was unfair, and we agreed and have taken it off. My understanding is that there is within the act the flexibility that the tax could be identical tomorrow as it is today or after it's implemented as it is today. I think that's what the minister has indicated. However, I will say this: The flexibility will be left to the municipalities, since it is a municipal tax, and that's where I think the onus and responsibility will lie.

Mr Kwinter: There's no question that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business would love to see the tax removed. It is not being removed. It's just being reallocated and municipalities are going to have to recoup their revenue shortfall by apportioning it against small businesses.

There are no provisions in the act for any kind of different tax rates. This afternoon we're going to be addressing this bill. We're going to be asked to approve a bill that is effectively going to increase the taxes for the majority of small businesses. Is this what you see as a goal of the Common Sense Revolution?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, the change was one what small business had asked for and lobbied for because they felt the business occupancy tax was unfair. I think they, and you, have pointed out that under the unfair tax system we inherited from you and the NDP an amendment would have to be made to allow municipalities to adjust tax burdens to promote fairness and satisfy certain local needs. That's why the minister and the government have announced that legislation will be introduced to enable municipalities to set lower tax rates on lower-valued commercial properties. I believe that has been the commitment of the minister.

I might say as well that I have a two-page briefing note here that explains it all, and I'd be happy to share it with the member.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. In northwestern Ontario the communities of Red Lake, Balmertown and Cochenour are suffering badly as a result of a labour dispute that has gone on now for 11 months at the Goldcorp mine. Your government has made it worse by allowing the company to use scabs; in this case, scabs from outside the province. In addition, what people in northwestern Ontario can't figure out is that this company continues to say they've got a rich gold deposit at the site but they seem to be in no hurry to reach a collective agreement with the workers and their union and bring the mine into full production.

Your government has helped the company here by allowing them to use scabs. Can you tell us what your government has done to safeguard the communities' interest, the public interest and the workers' interest in this situation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Minister of Labour is not here today, but I can report that this government, as any government, as when you were in government, as when the Liberals were in government, is not about to interfere in labour relations. They are attempting to negotiate a contract. We have brought in the most fair and balanced labour relations program to allow that to take place, which is why we've had fewer strikes than when you were in office. Quite frankly, I think it would be inappropriate during those negotiations for the government to take a position on one side or the other.

Mr Hampton: There are two issues here. On one issue you've really helped this company, Goldcorp. By changing the law to allow scabs, you made it possible for this company to bring in scabs from outside the province. You're threatening the communities involved, the workers involved, in fact the whole region. Workers have tried to get a collective agreement now for 11 months.

The second issue is this: The company keeps saying they've got a good gold deposit, but they show no interest in reaching a collective agreement. They show no interest, it seems, in bringing this mine into full production.

I ask you again, can you tell us what your government has done over the last year to safeguard the public interest, the communities' interest and those workers who live in those communities? Can you tell us what you've done?

Hon Mr Harris: The first thing we did, on June 8, 1995, was replace the most threatening government to jobs and growth and investment this province has ever seen. Since that time we have brought in a program of tax cuts, we have brought in a program of regulation, we have brought in a program of fairness, we've brought in a program of balance, we've brought in a program to deal with all the red tape you put out there in front of the businesses. We've brought an attitude that says when a company -- a gold company, any company -- wants to invest in this province, we're going to roll out the red carpet, not the red tape that you put in their face.

Never in the history of this province have we seen a government as anti-investment, anti-jobs, anti-growth as the New Democratic government, and the contrast of when we've ever seen a government more pro-growth or pro-investment as when this government took office in June 1995. That's what we've been doing since we threw you out of office.

HOUSING

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. One of the most important indicators for economic growth is the number of housing starts. Can you report to the House on the level of housing starts in the province of Ontario?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to thank the honourable member for Scarborough Centre for his question. I'm pleased to tell the House today that there is only good news for the housing sector in the province. I'd like to point out that there w