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

December 7, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L065A - Mon 7 Dec 1998 / Lun 7 Déc 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WINDSOR GOODFELLOWS

HOMELESSNESS

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

CHILD POVERTY

LAND USE PLANNING

PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NURSING STAFF

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

CHRISTMAS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

VISITOR

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

WORKFARE

TEXTBOOKS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

PROPERTY TAXATION

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

PALLIATIVE CARE

ELECTION CALL

REMEMBRANCE DAY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

PALLIATIVE CARE

ABORTION

ADOPTION

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WINDSOR GOODFELLOWS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today I rise to pay tribute to the Windsor Goodfellows, who this past weekend had their annual newspaper drive, which is the major fund-raising drive they do throughout the year.

Today we hear more stories about the rising incidence of child poverty. The Windsor Goodfellows started in 1910. It was originally the old newspaper boys. They sell this newspaper throughout our community to raise money, principally for their food bank and for shoes and boots for children in school.

The Goodfellows do remarkable work. At Christmastime alone this year they will distribute more than 5,000 food baskets. Those food baskets are also available throughout the rest of the year.

Many other organizations in our community contribute to help the Goodfellows. More than 700 volunteers help that food bank operate and the food distribution system work at Christmastime and throughout the year. The Canadian Auto Workers and a number of other organizations in our community help make this event a great success every year.

I was pleased again this year to join with the Goodfellows in this important drive. At a time, as I say, when the incidence of child poverty, of hunger and of homelessness, in every community throughout this province, continues to grow, communities like mine in Windsor are truly blessed to have the Windsor Goodfellows organization there to help them throughout the year.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The Toronto Disaster Relief Committee is having a trial tomorrow, and it's the homeless people versus the governments of Ontario and Canada.

"The accused stand charged:

"That they, the said governments of Canada and of Ontario, in Toronto and in Ottawa, between the first day of January, 1993, and the seventh day of December, 1998, inclusive, enacted legislation and adopted policies that resulted in decreased availability of affordable and supportive housing and created increased homelessness, and thereby contravened paragraph 1 of

article II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights.

"And further, that they, the said governments of Canada and of Ontario, in Toronto and in Ottawa, between the first day of January, 1993, and the seventh day of December, 1998, inclusive, failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of the right of everyone to adequate housing, contrary to paragraph 1 of

article II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights....

"And further, that the said government of Ontario, between the first day of January, 1996, and the seventh day of December, 1998, inclusive, cut payments for social assistance to a level below that required to maintain an adequate standard of living, contrary to paragraph 1 of

article II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

Everybody is invited to hear this trial. It will be tomorrow morning at 10 at All Saints Church, 215 Dundas Street East, where they will be talking about remedies, a response plan and an elimination plan. We invite everybody to come.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to once again tell the members of the assembly about the good things happening in the riding of Perth.

The final numbers for the Stratford Festival are in and they confirm that the 46th season, which concluded on November 8, was the most successful season ever. The six-month season, encompassing a total of 585 performances of 12 productions in three theatres, earned a gross box office revenue of $23,591,730, the highest in the festival's history.

Attendance was up nearly 20,000 over last year, with the total attendance for the season being 523,015.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the people who worked so diligently to ensure the festival's success this year. I believe that Antoni, the general manager for the theatre, summed it up nicely when he said of the Director, "Richard Monette has given us one more stellar season, and...we look forward to another enlightening, entertainment and record-breaking season in 1999."

The 1999 season will run from May 4 to November 7, 1999.

There's no better indication that Ontario is once again on the right track than success stories like this from the riding of Perth. As the representative for the riding of Perth, I am happy to be part of a government that made these things possible.

CHILD POVERTY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Metro Campaign 2000, a Toronto-based group, released some very alarming statistics about children, specifically children in poverty: More than one in three city of Toronto children under the age of 12 are living in poverty, 37% of Toronto's children; the total number of children is 135,735, an increase of 66% since the beginning of the decade; 1,360 children are living in Toronto's homeless shelters.

These statistics are alarming, and what's worse, we have a minister responsible for children in this House who refuses to answer questions that are placed to her regarding children in Ontario. Here we have a minister collecting a cabinet minister's wage and refusing to answer questions about children.

The questions we have for the Ontario government is: Who is looking after Ontario's children? Who is looking after those specifically who are in need?

We want answers from the government. We don't want to see you put off responsibilities to municipalities and blame the feds. Look at programs you used to deliver but you've cut back without looking at the kind of effect that would have on children. Food bank use is astronomical.

We hope these kinds of statistics will make the government realize that children are our number one concern.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The Sault Ste Marie North Planning Board, which does land use planning and development approvals in the 32 unorganized communities north of Sault Ste Marie to Montreal River harbour for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, will not receive enough funding to remain in operation much beyond the end of 1999. The minister has informed the planning board that provincial funding will not be provided for the board's operations beyond March 2000. The board will have to sunset its operations and wind down, providing severances to staff in 1999.

The Sault North Planning Board was established by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs in the mid-1970s to bring some order to land use planning and development because of the confusion, poor planning and housing and pollution problems in the area north of Sault Ste Marie that had plagued all of the unorganized communities along Highway 17 from Heyden through Goulais River, Batchawana to Montreal River, including Searchmont. The board is responsible to the minister and receives all of its funding for administration from the provincial government.

Apparently the current Conservative government is prepared to see the demise of good planning in the region and let the area revert to the development free-for-all of the 1960s and early 1970s with all the grave housing and environmental problems that resulted at that time. I call on the minister to provide the funding beyond 2000.

PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I rise today on a matter of utmost importance to the residents of Mississauga East: the unbearable noise generated by low-flying airplanes using the north-south runways at Lester B. Pearson airport.

Residents of my riding living east of Dixie, north of Burnhamthorpe in the Rockwood community face daily noise attacks that have been described by some residents as being like living in a war-torn region and by others as living in hell. Their homes vibrate; their alarms go on and off; their TV and electronic equipment breaks down; their property values are in a downward spiral; their babies cry non-stop; their mental and physical health are under extreme stress; their sense of security in their homes is gone.

When will the federal Liberal government learn that it cannot treat taxpayers, homeowners and residents of Mississauga East with such utmost disrespect and disregard for their concerns, and when will the federal Liberal government listen to the appeals of residents and enforce strict restrictions in the use of the north-south runways for use only on an emergency basis?

NURSING STAFF

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Nurses help provide quality to our health care system. Study after study has proven universally that with the involvement of nurses health care is enhanced. The latest US study published in the journal called Image provides us with some very interesting data which I hope the Harris government will listen to and learn from.

It says, first, surgical patients in hospitals with more nurses were less likely to get infections, pneumonia and other complications from their surgery; second, the chances of developing other lung-related problems and blood clots also dropped with extra nurses; third, an extra hour of nursing attention per surgical unit patient each day cut the risk of the patient getting a urinary tract infection by nearly 10% and the risk of pneumonia by 8%.

It is no small wonder that doctors, patients and the public are dismayed and angry at the Harris government for cutting 10,000 nursing jobs. Everyone knows, except the Harris government, that nurses are the front-line workers who provide stability, credibility and professionalism to our health care system.

That is why I am asking the Harris government today to support Bill 84, my private member's bill, which is in fact a bill of rights for nurses. I believe nurses deserve it. With this government, I believe they need it to protect them in order for them to do their jobs.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is about protecting the environment, and I want to take this opportunity to outline my position on shipping Toronto's or other large cities' garbage to the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake. My position and that of the NDP party have never wavered or changed on this issue. We are categorically opposed to using northern Ontario as a dumping ground for Toronto's garbage.

During the 1990 provincial election, I fought against the Liberal government and the Conservative candidate at that time to have Toronto's garbage shipped to Kapuskasing, there to be incinerated or dumped in the landfill. Fortunately, the Liberal plans never saw the light of day.

In government, the NDP delivered on our promise not to use northern Ontario as a dumping ground for Toronto's garbage. You can rest assured it was not popular with everybody in southern Ontario but it was the right thing to do, I believe. We believed then, as we do now, that the garbage issue should be taken care of locally within the municipalities.

There is no guarantee that the garbage site at the Adams mine site won't contaminate local groundwater. I've been told that the rock is so fractured at this site that the pollutants inevitably will leak into the groundwater.

We must not gamble our environment away. The stakes for us, for our children and for generations to come are too high.

There are a lot of other economic development concerns that can be developed out there for each and every community within northern Ontario to create jobs and make sure the environment is protected at the same time that we're developing and creating new jobs in the north.

CHRISTMAS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): This certainly is the season of hope and happiness. I have participated in several community events in my riding of Durham East to recognize the importance of Christmas as a time for everyone to have hope and optimism for the future.

Most recently, I was in the Santa Claus parade in Bowmanville, another Santa Claus parade in Port Perry, and of course there are parades throughout Durham to mark this very special occasion. This past weekend I was very privileged to be involved with the Christmas tree lighting in the town of Whitby and the municipality of Bowmanville.

Fundraising activities are also very much part of the agenda on the weekends, where most members in the House, I'm sure, attend a variety of activities at church bazaars, museum activities, as well as perhaps the charity breakfasts that are being held by many business organizations. Most important, I want to recognize the wonderful work that the Salvation Army does at this time of year, providing food and toys for families in need. Also, the Durham regional police toy drive is currently underway and all members are encouraged to participate in their communities.

With a 30% tax cut and more jobs than ever in the history of this province, I call on all members to be generous to their fellow community members at this time of year, and I extend my best wishes for a wonderful, safe, happy and hopeful Christmas to everyone in this House this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Reports by committees? Introduction of bills? Motions?

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(e)(i), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 12 midnight on December 7, 8 and 10, 1998, for the purpose of conducting government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the notice requirement be waived with respect to private member's ballot item number 40.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to the standing committee on resources development and Bill 71, the Professional Foresters Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, outside of its regularly scheduled meeting times, but not during routine proceedings, for the purpose of considering Bill 71,

An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I'd ask for unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills as one of the members present wanted to introduce a private member's bill but was not here.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

Mr Martiniuk moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to provide for fair distribution of medical resources in Ontario / Projet de loi 95, Loi assurant la distribution équitable des ressources médicales en Ontario.

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

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This bill requires students in a faculty of medicine in Ontario to enter a contract with the crown under which they agree after graduating to practise medicine in an area of Ontario designated by the Minister of Health within a period specified in the contract and for the period specified in the contract. If they default on the contract, the crown would be entitled to recover from them the amount of the cost of their education that the crown has paid or subsidized.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Deputy Premier. There have been concerns raised by the people of Ontario with respect to the proposed settlement for the former Speaker. Your government has offered to settle the case for in excess of $430,000, not including the Legislative Assembly's own costs. The Legislative Assembly's own solicitors know of no case where a third party such as the Legislative Assembly, whose liability in their opinion is extremely remote, would in effect pay the legal costs of all parties involved.

Why would you instruct our lawyers to settle the case on the basis of a payment of $430,000 when they themselves have strongly recommended against such a settlement?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Kingston and The Islands, that question is not properly before the House. Questions before the House can be only government matters. It's a Board of Internal Economy issue. All parties -

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Then why did the government support the settlement?

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold.

All parties are represented on the Board of Internal Economy. It's therefore inappropriate and not properly before the House.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect, Speaker, this is a matter that has -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, member for Perth. Stop the clock, please.

Member for Kingston and The Islands, please sit down. I will entertain points of order on this issue if you'd like me to, but my ruling is that this particular question is out of order.

Mr Gerretsen: I'd like to stand the question down then at this stage.

The Speaker: I'll have to get back on standing it down.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order: Surely, Speaker, if the member were to direct the question to the Treasurer or to the Chair of Management Board, those ministers are responsible for authorizing the expenditure of the funds for the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, you're incorrect. The authorization of those funds comes directly from the Board of Internal Economy. Appropriations are submitted by the Board of Internal Economy, with representation from all parties. It is not a government decision as to how those monies are appropriated; it's a decision of the Board of Internal Economy. It is therefore not properly before this House. It is a legislative matter.

What I'm trying to explain is that the question, as it's worded, is out of order. I don't think you can stand down an out-of-order question. If you want to go on to another question, you're more than welcome to, but you can't stand down a question that's out of order.

Mr Gerretsen: I will ask the question in a different fashion then, Mr Speaker. I will simply ask the Deputy Premier why he would instruct the members of his government on the Board of Internal Economy to settle the case on the payment of $430,000.

The Speaker: It's still out of order. I'm sorry.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is $400,000 of taxpayers' money. The people where I come from were adamant -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, let me just say this: I am prepared to listen to your point of order.

Mr Kormos: - behind doors, secret deal -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order. Having a rant at me - I'm not arguing the point with you.

Mr Kormos: The people want to know -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order. It's not a question of the appropriateness of the expenditure or the appropriateness of the decision-making.

All I'm saying to the members of the opposition is, what is properly before this House is outlined in our standing orders. A government cannot be questioned on expenditures and decisions made for the Legislative Assembly by the Board of Internal Economy because we are all representatives on that board.

I understand the frustration you have, but it doesn't put the question in order.

Member for Kingston and The Islands, first question.

Mr Gerretsen: My question then, is, will you bring this matter to the floor of the Legislature in order for it to be debated by all of us, the representatives of the province -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, the fact is they have no ability to do that. The government can't bring an issue from the Board of Internal Economy to the House.

I am going to have to ask you to ask a new question or an in-order question, or we're going to have to move on.

Mr Gerretsen: I request unanimous consent that there be a free and open public debate about this issue in the House at this time.

The Speaker: You'd better clarify it for me. You want to just dispense with question period today and have an open debate on this issue?

Mr Gerretsen: After question period.

The Speaker: All right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Brant-Haldimand, come to order.

I think everyone understands consent. Agreed? No.

First question, the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services and it's with regard to children's mental health services in Ontario, specifically agencies that provide day treatment programs and residential beds for children who are considered severe kids who cannot be in school. Some are suicidal, some are extremely violent.

In Windsor, 600 children are currently on a waiting list to get some kind of service through these children's mental health agencies. In Thunder Bay, the list is 250 children with severe issues that must be addressed.

Last week in Windsor police removed a loaded gun from underneath a 12-year-old boy's bed. Though the children's aid were called, they couldn't take the child into care because his case wasn't as serious as others. This boy's family had been trying to get mental health services for their child long before it reached the crisis. The waiting list, though, 600 kids long, meant that it must become an emergency before it becomes addressed.

Minister, what are you prepared to do to improve -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Children's mental health services are indeed a very important support for families in this province. One of the initiatives we are undertaking through Making Services Work for People is to try to ensure that children's mental health services are part of the children's services envelope; that where we can find ways to find savings on the administration side, we can invest that money back into priority areas, for example, children's mental health, because we know there need to be more financial supports out there for families who are facing circumstances where their child does have a mental health issue.

We've been very pleased that across the province in many of the communities that are undertaking this planning process - and I'd like to stress it is a community planning process - we are identifying not only new dollars that we can reinvest in those priority areas but also better ways to deliver those programs so that families are not caught on waiting lists.

Mrs Pupatello: This past fall, one of the schools in my riding had four children who should have been in one of these day treatment programs but unfortunately found themselves on this waiting list. Three of the four were suicidal. One of the children tried to kill himself by climbing on top of the monkey bars at recess and was sent home where he then tried to hang himself in the family closet. The boy ended up in intensive care - one more example of a child on a waiting list who had to become a crisis before he moved up the list.

Minister, you talk about the community plan in restructuring for children's services, but the truth is that they are beholden to your ministry for inaccurate data to determine the future needs of these children's services. Your current plan now in our area is to cut more beds and cut day treatment programs instead of improving them for the needs that exist in our community. Our area has already lost 80 beds.

Minister, your answer did not answer the question. What will you do for Ontario's children who are severely disturbed?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, the Making Services Work for People initiative, which is, as she knows, a community-based planning process, is not about cutting services and it's not about cutting money. As a matter of fact, no money is being taken out and it has been identified in many communities where we can find new money to reinvest in some of those priority areas.

The other improvement that Making Services Work for People, the community planning process, is going to identify for us, and does in many communities, is that what happens is that families go from agency to agency to try and get the services they need. They get stuck on their waiting lists, they get assessed, they get reassessed and they get reassessed again. That's not a good way to meet those families' needs.

One of two key objectives of this new process is to have one coordinated access point. You get priorities so that those children the honourable member mentions get the priority they need. Second, one assessment is done of that family and that child so they don't keep constantly having to go through some administrative bureaucracy red tape.

Mrs Pupatello: To the minister: There is nothing in your answer that will resolve the issue that currently exists for children on waiting lists who have severe emotional and behavioural issues.

In Thunder Bay today, the current list at the Lakehead Regional Family Centre is 250 children. The region has had a whopping 40% increase in suicidal children over the last several years, but since you took office, a decrease in funding by 12.4%. In fact, the kids in crisis in Thunder Bay end up in a hospital because you cannot allow the intervention because you have cut the services.

Minister, what you are talking about in your answer does nothing to resolve children in crisis who are in crisis today in Ontario. We hope you have a better answer than that next time.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, the honourable member is quite aware of the problems in children's services, including children's mental health. This was a problem that was in existence before our government came into power. It was a problem they themselves had identified as needing significant reform. They had put out a community planning process. We are actually doing it because they didn't do it when they had the opportunity as government.

There's no question, there are waiting lists, there are families and children who need better services, and rather than sitting here and complaining about it as the honourable member is doing, we are actually taking steps that are going to result in improvements for these families, in taking children off waiting lists.

The other point is, the minister responsible for children, Margaret Marland, is also reviewing with families how we can better improve the services out there, just to mention two initiatives that are actually going to help families have better services.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question again is to the Deputy Premier. Your government has been using taxpayers' dollars very freely, as a matter of fact in excess of some $47 million for blatant political advertising campaigns, yet parents can't get daycare places for their children. In my own community about 2,000 patients are doing without any home care because of the cuts by your government. Emergency departments have been closed.

I would very simply like to ask you, will you instruct your members on the Board of Internal Economy to bring forth a motion so that this matter can be discussed and debated fully in this House?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I can see where the member for Kingston and The Islands is going, but the question is still out of order. I appreciate the fact that you've somehow tied it in with the government, but the question was, "Would you instruct your members of the Board of Internal Economy?" As chair of the Board of Internal Economy, a tripartite board, it's out of order. You just can't get around it.

Start the clock again, please.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely to goodness there's nothing wrong in asking in this House that a cabinet minister who deals with the finances of this province give instructions or make a request to the members of his governing party who sit on the Board of Internal Economy in this province. That's all I'm asking him right now, to simply ask your members who sit on the Board of Internal Economy to bring forth a motion so this matter can -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, the point I'm trying to make to you is that yes, that's not right; it is wrong. The rationale is because the Board of Internal Economy -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Riverside, I don't want to be heckled when I'm up here.

The fact is that it's an internal committee, sat on by all parties of this Legislature. It is not the government's responsibility to answer for that committee. It's just that simple.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate your ruling. Would it be helpful for us to suggest that by unanimous consent of this House, this whole matter and this sizeable expenditure could be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee for discussion and debate at its convenience?

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, unanimous consent is always in order, so if you're seeking that unanimous consent and there is unanimous consent, of course it's in order.

Mr Wildman: So I'm asking for unanimous consent to refer this matter to the Legislative Assembly committee of this House to consider this sizable expenditure of public funds.

The Speaker: Agreed? I heard a "No."

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Point of order, Mr Speaker: Please, $400,000 is a sizable amount of taxpayers' money. How does the public access the decision to spend half a million dollars? Please, Speaker, I'm asking for your guidance. The public wants to know. Surely, there has to be -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I appreciate what you're saying, but it's not my role nor my responsibility to advise caucuses on how best to go about doing their business. I only interpret the rules as set down by the rest of us. The rules are fairly clear on this one. If there is no angle around it, there's no angle around it. It's not up to me to find one for you. I wish I could, but I can't.

Mr Kormos: Point of order, Speaker: This is an affront to democracy, that the public has no right to know what went on behind those closed doors that resulted in an expenditure of almost half a million dollars.

The Speaker: You know what? You've entered into debate. It's really not a point of order any more, it's debate.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have two suggestions. Since, as I understand it, there will have to be supplementary estimates to cover this expenditure, would the House agree by unanimous consent to refer this matter to the estimates committee?

The Speaker: I'm not sure that's accurate. I don't know if there will have to be supplementary estimates made. I don't want to tell you how it's going to be funded, because then we're into a debate in this Legislature about the Board of Internal Economy. But I don't want to mislead you into thinking that is the process that has been adopted. At the Board of Internal Economy, if you talk to your own member, she would inform you of the same thing.

Mr Wildman: OK. Then I have another suggestion, Speaker: Will the House give unanimous consent to allow the member for Kingston and The Islands to put the question?

The Speaker: That's always in order. Does the House agree to allow the member for Kingston and The Islands to put his question? I heard a "No."

New question, member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: This is a new question, Mr Speaker. We all know that the Conservative Party has used thousands, indeed millions of dollars to defame the leader of my party. Your coffers are filled to the limit. Let me -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hang on.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this opportunity to inform all members that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Honourable Jose Lello, Secretary of State for the Portuguese Communities Overseas. Please join me in welcoming him here today.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Gerretsen: I ask, then, will you recommend to your party here in Ontario that it pay for the damages the people of Ontario will have to pay as a result of the settlement offer that your people have put on the table?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I've sat on the Board of Internal Economy in this place for 10 years. The Board of Internal Economy is a function of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly has its own budget. It isn't determined by the government; it's determined by the members themselves. The Board of Internal Economy strikes a budget. It is chaired, as you know, by the Speaker of the day. It has representation from all three parties, and it determines how it expends its money.

I don't think you would want, quite frankly, not just this government but any government in this place in the 18 years I've been sitting here to determine that for those people. That is why we have a Board of Internal Economy in the first place.

Mr Gerretsen: The people across this province are extremely concerned about how their tax dollars are being spent. I had all sorts of comments over the weekend and undoubtedly other members had comments about this as well.

All I'm asking you is, will you go to your Conservative Party executive members and ask them whether the party itself will be prepared to compensate the government of Ontario for whatever money it has to pay to settle this matter? That's what I'm asking you. Just answer that very simple question: Will you make that recommendation to the executive of the PC Party of Ontario?

The Speaker: You know what? That one's out of order now. You can't ask government members questions about the party. You were on side in the last one, but now it's not a proper question before the House.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect, Speaker, I did not ask him about the Conservative Party of Ontario. I asked him to do something so that the people of Ontario can be compensated for the amount they're out as a result of this settlement.

The Speaker: That's in order.

Hon Mr Eves: I have never asked or directed officials from the Ontario PC Party to do anything.

Interjection: Oh, come on.

Hon Mr Eves: I have not, ever, in my almost 18 years as a member of the Legislature, either on that side of the House or on this side of the House, either there, there or here, and I don't know why I would start now. I have never directed another member of the Board of Internal Economy to do anything, whether I was sitting over there or sitting over here. I am not a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I don't know what went on in the Board of Internal Economy, but it is an autonomous body, determining part of the budget of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, chaired by the Speaker.

Mr Gerretsen: Sir, the taxpayers of Ontario are very concerned about how their money is being spent, particularly in a situation like this. They find it very difficult to comprehend that, in addition to our assembly's own legal costs, they will have to pay out another $430,000. The taxpayers are concerned about that and they want to know what this government is prepared to do to rectify that wrong.

I'm asking you a very broad and general final supplementary question: What are you, as the Minister of Finance involved with the finances of this province on a day-to-day basis, prepared to do about the situation in order to rectify what the people of Ontario feel is a great miscarriage of justice?

Hon Mr Eves: There have been many issues and many matters, and presumably other lawsuits and settlements determined by the Board of Internal Economy. I know when I sat on the board for 10 years there certainly were many lawsuits that came before the board by employees and former employees etc. There are no directions given by the government. The board is an independent body. It is responsible to the Legislative Assembly, it is chaired by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and it makes its own decisions as to how it spends its own budget.

As the member over here has stated, if more monies would be needed for any purpose by the Board of Internal Economy, they may well be required to seek a supplementary estimate or a supplementary line item in their budget, but to the best of my understanding - however, I'm not a member of the board - that has not happened and that is not the case in this instance.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Deputy Premier in his role as Deputy Premier. My question is this: Do you support the members of your caucus, people who are responsible to you in your role as Deputy Premier? Do you support the expenditure of at least $400,000 in this way?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I don't know exactly what the Board of Internal Economy decided. I don't know all the issues that were before the board. I'm not a member of the board. However, I was a member of the board for some 10 years and I think every member of the board apprises himself or herself of the issues that are before the board of the day and they make a determination based on their own conscience as to how they vote on any individual matter. It is not for me or anybody else to direct those members as to how they vote and how they expend the budget that is allotted to them by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I'm glad the Deputy Premier brought up the issue of conscience because I want to ask you about the conscience of your government, about the standards of your government. Does it meet with the standards of your government, with the conscience of your government, that over $400,000 of taxpayers' money should be spent in this way, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: Maybe he knows all the particulars of what went on at the board. I didn't understand that you were a member of the Board of Internal Economy, but maybe you are; I stand to be corrected. I certainly don't know the discussion that went on. I don't know the facts that were presented to the board and I don't know what ultimate decision or recommendation they have or haven't made.

Mr Hampton: It's widely reported in the press, not just in this city but in this province and elsewhere, exactly what is going down. Again I have to ask you, Deputy Premier, does it meet the standards of your government, does it meet the conscience of your government in terms of how taxpayers' money is spent that this approval should be made behind closed doors, in secret, without any public debate, any public discussion?

Don't tell us you don't know what happened. Virtually everybody in Ontario knows by now what happened and will know more about what happened despite your efforts to keep it quiet.

Does this meet the standards of your government, the conscience of your government for the spending of taxpayers' money, that Conservative members would meet in a closed room, in secret, and approve this kind of expenditure?

Hon Mr Eves: I think the leader of the third party is trying to create the impression that somehow the Board of Internal Economy today, in 1998, is operating under different rules than it was between the years 1990 and 1995 when his government was in power, or any time before that, since the board's inception, I might add. Let it be clear that the board is operating under exactly the same rules and principles it always has. There is a procedure for the minutes of the board meeting to be made public at a certain point in time. He quite knows that.

It is an independent board. It is represented by all three parties. It is chaired by the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature. This is not a party issue. This is an issue of an independent body chaired by the independent Speaker of the Ontario Legislature, and it determines how it expends its budget allotted to it.

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

Mr Hampton: I would say to you, Deputy Premier, that this is about the standards of your government. This is about the conscience of your government when it comes to the spending of taxpayers' money.

WORKFARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Deputy Premier again: My second question is about how you treat the poorest citizens of this province. In the last two weeks, everyone from the United Way to the United Nations has condemned the way your government goes after the poorest people in this province.

On Friday the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural rights released its report on human rights in Canada, and guess what? They singled out Ontario to be condemned. The committee particularly mentioned Bill 22, your law that makes it illegal for workfare participants to join a union. The committee said Bill 22 is a clear violation of

article VIII of the particular United Nations covenant.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question?

Mr Hampton: Minister, will you do away with Bill 22 so Ontario can observe and live up to its obligations under -

The Speaker: Deputy Premier.

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Research reports from agencies such as the United Nations can be of great help to governments at all levels in addressing serious problems; for example, the problem of child poverty. Those data and that information can be very helpful. Unfortunately, if those data are not correct, it leaves governments at a loss to implement recommendations that they may well be putting forward. As the honourable member is very much aware, there are people on welfare who currently belong to unions. There are people on welfare who have part-time jobs in unionized workplaces. Nothing that we are doing as a government is going to change that.

Mr Hampton: I gather what we're hearing from the minister is that she considers herself above international law, that she can disregard international law, that international human rights sanctioned by the United Nations somehow don't apply to her.

Does the name - oh, I won't mention it, but there is another person in the world right now who says that international law doesn't apply to him.

The reality is that they single Ontario out as attacking poor people. We're used to this. We remember Bill 7, where you went after every working person in the province, where you tried to make it more difficult for them to form a union, and that one was condemned by the International Labour Organization.

What you're really up to in Bill 22 is you're trying to deny the human rights of the poorest people in this province and you're also trying to send them a message. Your message is: "Don't bother trying to organize a union to help yourself. This government will crush you."

It's a matter of international human rights. Will you withdraw Bill 22 and observe -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the concern of the honourable member, but to somehow try and spin that the Ontario government somehow considers international law not appropriate is absolute balderdash. There is nothing this government is doing that is taking away the rights of individuals on welfare. People who are on social assistance today belong to unions; there is nothing wrong with that. People who are on welfare today have part-time jobs in unionized workplaces; there is nothing wrong with that. And there is nothing this government wants to do to take that away.

We are not in violation of anything from the United Nations; quite the contrary, the programs we have in place are getting more people off welfare into paid jobs.

The right to work is something the United Nations thinks is very important. They think that actually helps families move themselves out of poverty. Last month, 17,000 more people in Ontario left the welfare roles. They're out there in paid employment. That is 357,000 fewer people trapped on welfare today than there were three and a half years ago. That's people who are -

The Speaker: Final supplementary, member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Minister, one of your prosperous government backbenchers enjoys taxpayer support to the tune of almost half a million dollars, yet you continue to dump on the poor. In fact, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow; your policies are making sure of that. We know that working people organize themselves into unions because the minimum standards that you and your government have established are not enough to bring families out of poverty. This is another thing the UN report said. You should pay close attention to it.

"The committee is concerned that the minimum wage is not sufficient for a worker to have an adequate standard of living which also covers his or her family."

Minister, you shouldn't be denying workfare participants the right to organize; you should be telling them how to do it, so that they don't move from social assistance to working poverty but into an adequate standard of living in a unionized job. Bill 22 violates international convention; it tells people on social assistance that they have no rights. Do the right thing: Repeal it. Acknowledge that you are subject to that international law.

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the most significant things in this country that has undermined the incomes of families is increased government taxation. That's something they don't like to mention over there. If you're in a low-income job, the last thing the government should be doing is reaching into your pocket and taking away money. That's why in this province 655,000 fewer -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Chief government whip, you must withdraw that comment.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, come to order, please.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Because we believe that people who are in low-income working circumstances need all the help and support they can get from their government, that's why we have removed people in low-income jobs from the Ontario tax rolls; 655,000 fewer folks are paying Ontario income tax. That's very important. Through the national child benefit, those low-income working families are getting over $1,600 per child in additional money, dollars in their pockets, to help strengthen their family. That is on top of the money they can get through the child care supplement for working families in low-income circumstances; that's another $1,000 to those families. I will stack up -

The Speaker: Thank you. Official opposition, member for Fort William.

TEXTBOOKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, one of the constant things about your government is that you're more interested in your public relations message than in actually getting things right. I have here a copy of a letter that's gone out to every small business in Ontario, offering congratulations on the contribution of small business to the economy. This letter happens to have gone to the president of a small Ontario publishing firm that specializes in producing teacher resource materials to match the Ontario curriculum.

Interjection.

Mrs McLeod: The question is for the Minister of Education, I tell the minister responsible for economic development and trade. It's definitely an education question, because the fact is that although the Premier's letter talks about the outstanding contribution of this small company, your ministry is simply shutting this company out. My question is, will you respond to the concerns of this outstanding small Ontario firm and expand your list of approved curriculum materials so that teachers can have the resource materials they need?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): If the question is, through the next purchase of material, will teachers be allowed to purchase the course material - it's rather hard to determine what the question was, but if that is the question, yes, it was announced a month ago that teachers will have the opportunity to buy the curriculum material supporting the textbooks.

I will say, since I've been given the opportunity, this is one of the greatest successes we've had in the province this year, that we have purchased $68 million worth of textbooks for elementary students at a savings of $13 million, for a net cost of $55 million. The next wave of purchase is underway at the present time, and teachers, yes, will have the opportunity to purchase their guideline material through that particular purchase.

Mrs McLeod: The fact is, when you get beyond the public relations campaign, this government didn't allow any teacher resource materials to make the list. The fact is that they turned a decision on the purchase of $75 million worth of textbooks into a total fiasco because they wanted to create a photo opportunity. They rushed into the publication of text, they rushed teachers into making choices, they shut out many Canadian-produced materials, and they botched things up so badly that some of the textbooks that went out actually had erasable text. The problem is, they're doing it again.

I have a letter here from Brian Henderson, the head of the science department at Westdale Secondary School in Hamilton-Wentworth. Mr Henderson is concerned about the fact that his school is being given exactly 10 days - once again, 10 days - to choose new science materials from a new ministry list. He received the notice of his school's funding and the approved list of materials on December 4. The deadline for purchases is December 15 and, Minister, you haven't even released the science curriculum that the materials are being purchased for. Why are you repeating the same mistakes you made last spring? What's the rush this time?

Hon David Johnson: It's a puzzle as to where to start. The curriculum for the elementary schools was released way back last year. The secondary purchase is not yet underway. The materials that are being purchased are at the elementary level.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: In all the caterwauling here, I will say that the member is wrong on a number of different circumstances. One, the Canadian material: All of the books at the elementary level were published by publishers who have been providing textbooks to our schools here in Ontario for at least 15 years and they're all located right here in Canada. All of the books were actually printed right here in Canada except for 11,000 of the 3.3 million books; 11,000, because of some special feature, were not printed in Canada. All the rest were printed right here in Canada. This has been the greatest purchase of material in the history of the province of Ontario, and I'm proud of it.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Speaker: I will send a copy of the ministry's directives that went out to school boards to show that they are purchasing the secondary school materials by December 15.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, Bill 160 and your funding formula are not finished creating a crisis. We know now that 1,500 children will be evicted from daycare spaces because of your funding formula, because your funding formula doesn't allow for the calculation of child care centres in a school's budget in terms of the maintenance costs and the operating costs. Added to the 1,500 who are already going to be evicted, there's a further 15,000 on the waiting list, and 20,000 more will join once Ontario Works is fully implemented.

Minister, for you, apparently early childhood education is not part of the learning process. Virtually every study and every expert in North America says it is, that early childhood education, early child development, is the most important component in education and in learning. Why is your government going in the opposite direction?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Complete and utter nonsense, as is usual from the leader of the third party. That's why people get so frustrated, because he says things that are incorrect, question after question.

For example, the allegation he's making pertaining to schools in Toronto is pure conjecture. The Toronto school board indeed has indicated through the Toronto Star that they'll be closing no schools before June 2000. At that point in time they may not close any schools, they may close 20 schools, they may close 30 schools. So who would know, who would possibly know? Nobody knows whether that will involve any daycare centres or not.

The fact is that through the Premier's recent announcement, over $50 million will be going to the Toronto school board to support its operating costs, and some of that money, I might say, through unique features that schools have -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon David Johnson: - will be because the Toronto school board has wider hallways and has a higher proportion of daycare centres. That amounts to about a 6% increase for the Toronto school board, partially -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): What a lot of bafflegab. Minister, your funding formula has taken child care centres and put them on the chopping block. You're the ones who are forcing schools to ration their space, and in that priority your Bill 160 has said child care centres don't make the grade, don't make the priority.

I wonder if you can remember back to your throne speech, the one where you appointed Dr Fraser Mustard to conduct a review. He's going to be reporting recommendations this month to the minister responsible for children's issues. Listen to what he has said in the past, "Good, affordable daycare or early childhood education for all sectors of society is key for the future of a learning society."

That child care-school link was developing all across Ontario until your government started to dismantle it. You're the ones who cancelled the funding for new child care centres in schools. Bill 160 formally dissolved that child care-school link that was in place and now your funding formula is going to force eviction of children and child care centres. If Dr Fraser Mustard's recommendation says you're wrong and supports child care, will you change your funding formula, Minister?

Hon David Johnson: I think this government has shown an extreme willingness to listen, if you think of the adjustments this government has made to the funding formula for special education, the support for schools in terms of those who have 7.5 credits for secondary students, in terms of transportation, in terms of retirement gratuity monies, in terms of the $211 million of permanent funding into our schools to support operating costs.

Yes, we're most interested in the Fraser Mustard study. That's why we appointed people such as Mr Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain, specialists in the area of early childhood education, because this government believes that early childhood education is most important.

Yes, we will obviously listen very closely. But having said that, I'll reiterate that in terms of the operating costs, the Toronto school board and other school boards will be getting specific money because of the amount of daycare space they have and the new pupil places. The funding formula does not penalize schools for daycare centres -

The Speaker: New question.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Small businesses provide over 80% of the jobs in this province, as you well know. That's over 350,000 net new jobs that have been created by small businesses since this government came to power in 1995, provided by small business alone.

When we passed the Fair Municipal Finance Act, we gave municipalities some tools to ensure that small businesses, which provide 80% of the jobs, would not suffer debilitating tax increases. We heard from the Canadian federation of small business, however, and from some of our colleagues in the government that only 10% of municipalities used those tools, resulting in disastrous property tax increases for these small businesses, many of those increases being between 50% and 600%. Some of those businesses were located in my riding of Kitchener.

I want to thank you for meeting with the members for York-Mackenzie, Wentworth North, Durham East and myself in September to discuss this problem. Minister, do you have any numbers on how many small businesses were affected by irresponsible municipal actions and by how much?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, inside the city of Toronto, of course, small business - any type of business, commercial or industrial property - is protected by a 2.5% absolute cap. Outside the city of Toronto, however, after municipalities around the province - and quite frankly, some of them acted very responsibly; some unfortunately did not.

Fifty per cent of commercial taxpayers outside the city of Toronto, some 73,000, face tax increases of greater than 10%; 60,000 face tax increases greater than 20%; and 21%, or some 30,000 commercial taxpayers outside of Toronto, face tax increases of 50% or greater. Similarly, with respect to industrial properties, 34%, or some 9,000, face tax increases of greater than 20%.

Therefore the government did respond -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, my riding of Kitchener is located in Waterloo region, which hiked property taxes this year by 5.3% to cover, as they explained it, the costs of downloading. That, in addition to the unacceptably high tax increases that the small businesses in my riding suffered, threatened to bankrupt many of those small businesses. Regional and city of Kitchener officials blamed the provincial government. Now we find that the region has projected a surplus of $2.2 million, and that money is burning a hole in their pockets. The region is trying to determine what to do with the money.

Minister, do you have any advice for the regional municipality of Waterloo?

Hon Mr Eves: Far be it from me to advise municipal representatives what they should do with the money they have collected from their taxpayers. However, municipal representatives should not be raising tax rates to build up a reserve or to build up a surplus. I can see them raising taxes if it's necessary to make ends meet; however, I can't see them doing it to build up a reserve or a surplus.

We did receive submissions from various municipalities as well as AMO to permit municipalities to have the option of lowering a rate for a particular class or classes during any particular year, and we introduced an amendment in committee this morning to accommodate that request.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Ontarians have been aware for some time how your government has denied them access to MRI machines, how they have been forced to go down to the United States and buy the service, how you have created loopholes that have allowed certain hospitals to contract out to athletes, to private insurance companies. You effectively allow people to jump the queue.

Some of the jumping is being done with four feet. In London, it's so bad in terms of the little bit of funding you provide that veterinarians and dogs are having access to the MRI machines. Minister, will you confirm to us today that this arrangement, where dogs can receive an MRI scan, the most advanced diagnostic procedure available, ahead of people in Mike Harris's Ontario, was approved by you as the Minister of Health? Will you stand in the House today and tell us that you approved this arrangement?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): To the member of the opposition party, once again we have some information that isn't quite as the case is in fact. Third-party use of MRI machines is nothing new in this province. In fact, it was the NDP government in 1992 who legalized this practice. It was also the NDP two years later who put in place the funding for the MRI machines.

However, I am very pleased to say that it is our government that is leading the way throughout Canada in ensuring that our population has better access to MRIs than anywhere else in Canada. If we take a look at provincial comparisons regarding MRI machines, we can see that, unlike you, who only made the MRIs available to hospitals in teaching centres, our government is making every effort to ensure that there is equitable access to MRIs throughout this province, whether you live in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Ottawa or Windsor.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, that answer is neither acceptable nor accurate.

Section 4.4 of the Public Hospitals Act says you have to approve when buildings and equipment are being leased out or rented. If it's not technically your responsibility, then it sure as heck is morally.

Danielle Rancinan is a 47-year-old woman who had to wait eight months for an MRI under your government. She was too ill to go down to the United States and have it done, as many people have had to do under the Harris government.

You provide the lowest funding in Canada for MRI machines in hospitals. You force hospitals to cannibalize their other services. You go around the province making public relations announcements when in fact you don't even pay one dollar in six for operating those machines, and you make the communities buy them themselves.

Minister, what you should have said and what you still have a chance to stand up and say is that you will not put up with pets and privileged people having access to MRIs ahead of sick people, and that you'll announce today proper and full funding, including the funding you took away, to MRI machines in this province. Minister, do that.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member still does not understand that our government has done more to improve access to MRI machines than any past government in Ontario. It was your government that introduced the MRIs. You made them available only to the teaching centres. We have tripled access to MRIs since we were elected in this province. We presently have approved 31 machines. There are four more machines to be approved. You will have access no matter where you live, whether you live in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor or Ottawa. We have made absolutely no change to the practice where there's third party usage of MRI machines.

Also, I am very pleased to say we have done nothing in regard to the level of funding. However, I will tell you, we have not cut funding. In fact, we are looking to further increase the funding. We have done more than any other government. We are number one in Canada for access to -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and it's about your new ads in the United States. I hope they're not like your recent ads in the United States, where you told people about our good-quality schools and our highly trained workforce, and then the Premier came home, attacked our teachers and started closing the schools and attacking workers and their unions.

I also hope these new ads aren't like the ads you've been running in some of the Ontario newspapers, talking about jobs. This is one that was in the London Free Press and it talks about new jobs being created at Labatt's. But then the next day Ron Blain, who happens to work at Labatt's in London, writes a letter to the editor and points out - and he should know; he is one of the union stewards there, on the union executive -

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Oh, well, he knows for sure, of course.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Howie's research has gone to new heights.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock. Members, come to order. He only said, "union steward." Come to order, please. It's not a joke. We're out of order all the time now for silly stuff. Member for Scarborough East, would you be helpful? Thank you.

Mr Hampton: I'm sorry, Ron Blain is actually the president of the union there. He points out in his letter that in fact there are fewer jobs at Labatt's now than were there four years ago. He also points out that workers weren't told when they were enlisted for this photograph that it was for the Mike Harris propaganda machine. The workers there are still waiting for an apology.

My question for the minister is: Will you stop trying to spin a propaganda campaign? Your ad in London is false.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I take it the leader of the third party would like us not to talk about the positive environment we have in Ontario. Since we have formed the government, 462,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario. I think we should be out there making sure that other jurisdictions know what kind of quality product Ontario has. When you take a look at how other states spend their money to get their messages across about their environment: Ohio spends 14% more than Ontario; Virginia, 54% more than Ontario; Iowa, 73%; just to show you that this is a very positive campaign telling our good neighbours what a great province Ontario is.

Mr Hampton: I simply want to get at some of the reality of these ads. This is an ad that appeared in the Sudbury Star, paid for by your government. It brags about the creation of 30 new positions in the past 19 months at the Wabi Iron and Steel plant in New Liskeard. The only trouble is that when you go and talk to the workers at Wabi Iron and Steel in New Liskeard, there aren't 30 new jobs; in fact, they've actually lost jobs in the last 19 months. I can give you others. There's the famous Babcock and Wilcox ad that the government ran.

The point is that your government continues to spend all kinds of taxpayers' money on ads that are false. People know they're false. People know they're phony. People had their picture taken for these ads without being told it was going to be used in a propaganda campaign.

Minister, will you do the right thing, put the money back into health care, into education, and stop putting out these phony ads?

Hon Mr Palladini: Our government is doing the right thing and we're going to continue those things. If the leader of the third party wants to talk about specifics, let's talk about Sterling Trucks. It means an additional 400 jobs in St Thomas. Let's talk about Novartis, an additional 50 jobs in Oshawa. Let's talk about Hammerson Canada, where 4,200 jobs are presently there, and that number is expected to rise to over 5,500.

We are doing what's needed to make sure that the positive economic environment we have in our province will continue. We're going to do everything to make sure that more people get to know what we do have and the quality of product we have in Ontario.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister without Portfolio, responsible for privatization, who is also the government's lead on auto insurance issues. Last week the minister introduced a bill into the Legislature and delivered a statement regarding the government's successes related to auto insurance reform. In fact, it's my understanding that he said that auto insurance premiums are down, on average, by about 11% since our government's reforms took effect in November 1996. I wonder if the minister would inform the House in greater detail as to the nature of the proposed changes and the rationale behind them.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I'd be happy to respond to the honourable member for Wellington's very important question about auto insurance and the reform that we have brought forward to Ontario as it relates to auto insurance.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): They should appoint you to the Board of Internal Economy. Go for the big perks.

Hon Mr Sampson: I hear the member for Welland-Thorold commenting here, buffering about his plan. Of course, we had to take over from an auto insurance plan that was providing Ontario drivers with inadequate coverage, and rates that skyrocketed year after year. That was the legacy that member brought with his government to the people of Ontario. We decided that was unacceptable because the people of Ontario told us that was unacceptable.

So two years ago we brought forward a piece of legislation that brought fairness back to the auto insurance system in this province, provided Ontarians with the right and the responsibility to buy the appropriate insurance coverage for their own particular needs and provided stability to the rate structure in this province that no other jurisdiction in this country has been able to match yet.

Mr Arnott: I would like to thank the minister for his response and for the good work he's done on this issue in the last couple of years. I appreciate his explanation.

I wonder if the minister would provide additional details regarding some of the particular provisions contained in Bill 90, the Automobile Insurance Consumer Protection Act, as well as the other results of the two-year review of Ontario's auto insurance system, and would he indicate how children will benefit from the government's planned auto insurance changes.

Hon Mr Sampson: Again to my colleague from Wellington, I'd be happy to speak to the reform that we have brought forward, the fine-tuning, as we have called it, to the auto insurance plan that we have introduced, starting with the legislation I introduced to the House on Thursday of last week and also some statements I made to some stakeholders in the auto insurance industry this morning.

The member is correct: We did fine-tune the legislation to deal with the rights and privileges and benefits available to children involved in serious auto accidents, and we said that we want those children to have better access to the tort system for excess medical expenses. We've provided that in this particular bill.

We said that we would like to make sure that children's needs as they relate to catastrophic impairment are dealt with, to make sure they have the appropriate care and the appropriate attention, and in fact we have done that through the regulations that we intend to bring forward as well.

Indeed, we have reformed this plan to make sure that the children of Ontario do have an auto insurance product that meets their needs and yet is still fair and affordable to the citizens of this province.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition with over 6,000 names on it in support of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed closure of Niagara's only denominational hospital and the devastating effects that proposal will have on patients and potential patients from across the region.

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

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 90 people.

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

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

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

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

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

ELECTION CALL

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the current provincial government under Mike Harris has destroyed labour relations, gutted the WCB, caused rampant dependence on gambling, has contributed to mass homelessness and poverty while eroding our health care, educational and municipal institutions, we, the people of Chatham-Kent, are demanding that an election be called now, before the province is destroyed, morally, ethically and financially."

I affix my name to it.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure and privilege to present a petition from my riding of Durham East. This petition was really begun by the member for Durham-York, Julia Munro. I'll read it for the Speaker, if you will. Arguably, it's being presented for Legion branch 178 and Legion branch 419.

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent education materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by the Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of and appreciation for Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

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

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I'm pleased to put my name on this petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, bowing to the pressure from the electorate, the government of Ontario has delayed the implementation of its funding formula for one year;

"Whereas maintaining and supporting a quality public education is critical to the economic and social future of Ontario;

"Whereas particularly in large, multicultural cities, children in communities have varied needs;

"Whereas in an era of mega-mergers local schools have an extended role as a gathering place and a unifying force in our communities;

"Whereas, given the vital role of education in our society and schools in our communities, the issue of school closings cannot not be reduced to the application of an arbitrary and mechanical economic formula.

"In recognition of the foregoing principles, our community petitions the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The funding formula must be changed to reflect students and programs, not square feet. School closings should be permitted only after completion of a thorough impact study with community consultation for each school being considered. The impact study must consider the totality of student needs and the school's role in its community. The decision to close a school should only be made after ensuring that the replacement school can deliver equivalent services of an equal or superior nature."

This petition comes signed by hundreds of parents from Weston junior school, C.R. Marchant school, King George -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you. Further petitions?

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After I sign this, I will give it to Mariko Mackasey from York East, who will bring it to the table.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

"Further

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

I affix my signature.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 18 people.

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

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

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

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

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

ABORTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this.

ADOPTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition from a number of my constituents in Durham East, but I'd like to mention the names of Linda and Rick Davie and Peter and Wilma Hiemstra. There are a number of constituents here.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario (ARCO) brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;

"Whereas 20% of persons in Ontario are directly or indirectly affected by restricted rights to personal information available to other citizens;

"Whereas the adopted person's right to his or her birth identity is rooted in a basic and fundamental human need;

"Whereas most birth parents did not ask for lifelong confidentiality, it was imposed upon them involuntarily;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents, adoptive parents and other birth relatives; and

"Whereas research in other countries has shown that unqualified access to information in adoption satisfies the overwhelming majority of the parties involved;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revisions of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit unrestricted access to full personal, identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons and unrestricted access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches age 18."

Mr Speaker, this petition goes on, but I will sign my name in support of it.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

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

"To the government of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is cutting waste and duplication in the education system and refocusing education resources back into the classrooms where they belong; and

"Whereas the new student-focused funding formula defines and protects classroom spending; and

"Whereas the new formula will result in a $583-million increase in spending in classrooms by the year 2000; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has committed to maintaining spending for the next three years on supply teachers, classroom supplies, computers, professionals, paraprofessionals and staff development for the Toronto District School Board. There will be no cuts in the classrooms except for the ones made by the board's trustees themselves; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is increasing spending on classroom teachers and library and guidance services to the TDSB in each of the next three years, by $45 million this year, a further $20 million next year and a further $17 million the year after; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought equity in education funding so that all students, no matter whether they attend a public or separate school, will be treated equally; and

"Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board will have $33 million more to spend this year in the classroom, thanks to the Mike Harris government's new education funding formula; and

"Whereas the Toronto District School Board has already announced it will be hiring 400 new teachers this year; and

"Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board has announced it will be hiring 340 new teachers this year;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 82,

An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement / Projet de loi 82, Loi visant à affermir la protection de l'environnement et les mesures d'exécution à cet égard.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to rise today on this piece of legislation. Let me begin by saying that, like my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and our party, I support this bill.

The Ministry of the Environment needs every tool available to help it crack down on companies and individuals polluting our environment. But as I look at the Minister of the Environment across the way, I must tell you that I envision Napoleon with his hand in his vest, but I envision Napoleon without a horse. Can you imagine our Minister of the Environment getting all of these great new tools to help clean up our environment, yet he doesn't have the horses, he doesn't have the bodies, he doesn't have what he needs to make them work?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): More like Humpty-Dumpty. Doesn't have the king's horses or the king's men.

Mr Duncan: More like Humpty-Dumpty. He's going to fall off the wall and all the king's horses and all the king's men won't put Normie back together again.

I should pause and pay tribute to my colleague from Algoma for his private member's bill, which as I understand it is the precursor to this and is contained almost in its entirety. Like my colleague, I wonder why it's taken the government two years to bring this forward.

By way of background, I'd like to remind you that this bill will amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Pesticides Act and the Highway Traffic Act to provide the ministry with new regulatory tools to track, convict and penalize Ontario polluters.

As I say, the tools will be there in the legislation and in the regulations. I guess the problem we have to debate in the Legislature as part of the debate on this bill is, if you don't have the inspectors, if you don't have the ministry apparatus, how are you going to make it work?

All of us in public life, whether we serve at the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level, know that all the good laws in the world, all the good pieces of legislation in the world won't work if you don't have the tools, the mechanisms with which to enforce them.

Let's talk about some of the key elements in the bill. It proposes to raise fines and impose jail terms for polluters. It will provide the ministry with more powers to force individuals and companies that organize illegal waste dumping to pay for the cleanup. They will seize licence plates and permits from vehicles used to commit environmental offences, and secure areas and facilities to ensure evidence is protected. It will extend provisions for control of illegal dumping and cleanup for the people who broker illegal waste disposal. They will use more modern investigative techniques such as tracking equipment.

As I say, however, the bill will be useless unless these powers are backed up by an adequate number of Ministry of the Environment inspectors and enforcement staff to enforce tough environmental regulations.

I'd like to spend a few minutes on these issues. I must remind the House that this government's record since taking office has been one of cutting the Ministry of the Environment, by almost two thirds. I'll review some of those statistics and figures with members of the House. I'm going to try to put them in the context of my community, Windsor, where we have continual problems with the environment, problems, by the way, that are intricately linked to health care.

I recall the Conners Creek situation in Detroit last year, and I recall the quality of our water. I recall, for instance, the cuts to our own Ministry of the Environment office in Windsor, which now see us effectively without our own local office and having to rely on Sarnia and other offices to help enforce the provisions of the various acts I spoke about earlier.

In a very real sense, my community, Windsor, has been affected. I'd like to remind members of the House, who I know are taken up with the responsibilities of their own constituencies, of a couple of things. The incidence of lung cancer in my community, Windsor, is higher than elsewhere. There are all kinds of problems associated with our environment that are somewhat unique. We see all kinds of situations that need cleanup, for which funding hasn't been available.

In my community, Windsor, we are faced with special problems related to the environment. When you cut our inspectors, indeed when you cut the monitoring stations - I remind the members of the government that the provincial minister wrote to the federal minister and they wrote to the state officials in Michigan and to the Environmental Protection Agency officials in Washington when Conners Creek was set to re-fire, and everybody wanted action taken. What the minister forgot to remind people of at the time was that our monitoring stations had been closed down in Windsor, so we couldn't monitor the effluent that was coming across the river to Windsor from Detroit.

We have to view Bill 82 in the context of the government's overall record on the environment. I'd like to read some very fascinating quotes that have occurred over the years, then I'd like to review some very basic statistics, and then I'd like to review some of the government's other legislative initiatives that have impacted on the environment.

I'm going to begin by reviewing some quotes. Here's one from Mike Harris. It's taken out of the Toronto Star, dated June 5, 1995. It says: "I don't think you'll find a cent there to cut out of the environment. We were able to find $6 billion in cuts to government spending without cutting the environment." It reminds me of the promise not to close hospitals. I remember very well that in the leader's debate the Premier said, and I'm paraphrasing now, "It's not our plan to close hospitals." Where are we at now? We're at 39 and counting.

Again, in May 1995, "It's not our plan to close hospitals"; in 1998, today, it's 39 and counting. At about that same time, the then leader of the third party, today's Premier Mike Harris, said: "I don't think you'll find a cent there to cut out of the environment. We were able to find $6 billion in cuts to government spending without cutting the environment." Well, that was then and this is now.

I'd like to read another quote, this one from Eva Ligeti, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, in her 1996 annual report to the Legislature. It says: "And if we continue along this path, our right to a healthy environment will be jeopardized.... We cannot afford to focus on short-term savings at the expense of long-term environmental health."

I guess that's part of the difficulty I've had with some of the initiatives of this government, whether it be in education, whether it be in health care, whether it be in environment, this notion of short-term pain for long-term gain. That, I think, is at the root of what the government would like to have us believe. Unfortunately, in my view, they have mismanaged the effort to get a balanced budget. They have mismanaged the provincial treasury. The timing of their tax cut was all wrong.

They should have taken a note out of the federal Liberal handbook and balanced the budget first and then looked at tax cuts so we wouldn't have the kinds of cuts to the Ministry of the Environment that we've seen, certainly not to the extent we've seen.

Unfortunately, with the environment, with health care and education, if you make a mistake the first time, you can't get it back, because there are children who are affected in schools and there are patients in hospitals. With respect to our environment, once that environment is polluted, those who have tried to deal with remedial solutions to clean things up know how difficult and expensive that is. So when the government boasts next year, as it will in its budget, that they have achieved a balanced budget, there will be a cost, and the environment is one area where we can directly link problems associated with budget cuts.

I have an interesting quote here from our minister, Mr Sterling, from the Globe and Mail dated October 16, 1996.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is that the Niagara Escarpment Commission?

Mr Duncan: I'm going to have that quote in a few moments, but first, he says, "We lose 1,800 Ontarians (a year) prematurely" as a result of air pollution. Eighteen hundred Ontarians, and then it took them two more years to look at car exhaust, exhaust fumes, and try in a program to reduce those, after lots of good announcements early on. That's what Mr Sterling said.

Then I found a quote from the Provincial Auditor in his 1996 report to the Legislature. In order to properly safeguard the ecosystem and human health, he recommends that the ministry update its standards for air pollutants, improve its monitoring efforts in the areas of air, water and hazardous waste materials, and develop a more proactive and systematic approach to protecting and managing groundwater.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Didn't he say that in 1998 as well?

Mr Duncan: I believe he may have said that again in 1998. The Provincial Auditor is not exactly a tax-and-spend Liberal, is he? He's saying to the government that this is a trust that you have, and you have an obligation to make it work because once that environment is polluted, once it's no longer clean, it's not that easy to get it back.

I have an interesting quote from the Hamilton Spectator dated February 18, 1998. When told that Ontario businesses are flushing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of hazardous waste down municipal sewers, Norm Sterling's response was "What else do you do with this material?" What else do you do with this material? Part of the job of the Minister of the Environment is to figure out what to do with the material in a manner that will minimize the negative impacts that this kind of procedure can have on our environment.

On April 31, 1996, the World Wildlife Fund gave Ontario a grade of F on its efforts to protect ecologically significant areas of the province. Even Alberta received a B.

Bill 82 is another of those famous government bills that's long on rhetoric and makes a lot of commitments to improving the environment and changing regulations, changes frankly we will support as we will support this bill, but we have to continue to remember that for legislation to work, it has to be enforceable.

Let's review a little bit of what this government has done in the area of the environment, first on the staffing level. When this government took office in 1995, the ministry had approximately 2,400 jobs, 2,400 people working within the Ministry of the Environment to help protect the environment, to help enforce the laws of our Ministry of the Environment, to help enforce the regulations of that ministry. What did the government do? It cut 880 of them, 36%.

The government will tell you we had a burgeoning bureaucracy and we could be more efficient, but what that translated to was shutting down regional offices in my community, in Windsor for instance, where we all acknowledge there are special problems associated with pollution.

What about the budget for the Ministry of the Environment? There was $286 million in cuts in their operating budget in 1994-95 and a total operating budget cut of 42% since this government took office. Again, government members will stand up and argue that, "We're doing more with less," and that's simply not the case; you're doing less with less. You do not have the means by which you will be able to enforce the provisions of Bill 82, because you had much different priorities.

This government can find it in its heart to settle legal settlements of $400,000, but it can't find the money to staff up the Ministry of the Environment. You have $47 million of government money, taxpayers' dollars, for your ads, and all you have for the Ministry of the Environment are 42% cuts.

In addition to the Ministry of the Environment, we've seen 2,100 jobs cut out of the Ministry of Natural Resources. That's a 43% cut. In terms of budget cuts, 31%. The government's record is abysmal. The government has systematically stripped its own ability to enforce the very provisions that are contained in Bill 82 and will become part of the law of the province. They talk a good game, but they don't deliver.

I'd like to spend my remaining time reviewing a few more things this government has done and a few other quotes. Let's take, for instance, NAFTA's Commission for Environmental Co-operation report, Taking Stock, which finds that Ontario produces the third-largest amount of pollution out of all US states and Canadian provinces, more than New York, Michigan or California, and while we're finding this out, we're cutting our ability to enforce our own laws.

It makes it very difficult when we have to fight Conners Creek in Detroit, when we have to look at what we call the toxic hot spots in Michigan, to go with a straight face and ask them to do a better job when we have a provincial government in this province that has done what it has done in cutting our ability to enforce our environmental standards.

I forgot to mention that the compliance and enforcement branch of this ministry was cut by 30% or $15 million, so directly related, here we have a bill that proposes to toughen up our laws, but at the same time we do that, we don't have the means by which to enforce.

The inspection and enforcement cuts have resulted in a drop in charges against polluters: 683 charges were laid against polluters in the first 10 months of 1996 compared with 1,037 in all of 1995, a 21% reduction. Fines dropped 57%. That's taken out of the Globe and Mail, January 10, 1997.

The ministry's ability to prosecute has been reduced from 10 staff in 1990 to four in 1996. So, even if the government had the monitoring equipment to monitor, the inspectors to follow up and then charges laid, it simply does not have the means by which it can prosecute.

The number of water monitoring stations has fallen from 700 in 1991 to just over 200 in 1996. You can't monitor the quality of our water and you can't monitor the quality of our air. Even if you could, you don't have the prosecutors available to take it through court.

There's a 40% reduction in laboratory services. They've eliminated the three regional labs, Thunder Bay, Kingston and London, and there's a reduction of jobs at the lone remaining Toronto lab - a total reduction of 106 jobs. Aside from the obvious consequences to those individuals, what does this mean? It means, again, if you don't have the monitoring stations, you don't have the labs to analyze it, you don't have the inspectors to go out and you don't have the prosecutors, it's no wonder that the charges you lay go down.

It's no wonder, and shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, that under this government one very simple message is clear: The environment is getting dirtier, and they've got no way of enforcing the provisions that are contained in Bill 82.

All of these changes have taken the better part of three and a half years. I think all of us are prepared to look at ways of doing things better, of making better use of the resources we have. But you simply cannot expect to have a ministry, a government organization that can enforce meaningful environmental standards when you're cutting to the depth that you see being cut here.

I say to the government, we support the provisions contained in Bill 82. We will vote in favour of the bill. But we have not lost sight of the fact that you do not have the resources to enable yourself to enforce them. That's the sad record of the Harris government.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): In response to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I think he hit the nail on the head, and I'll address this more in a few minutes when I speak at length to this bill before us today, and that is the issue of the cuts and the deregulation that have taken place in this government, in the Ministry of the Environment and indeed in the Ministry of Natural Resources over the last three years. It has been pointed out by members from the opposition since this bill was introduced and, in truth, since the day the government started to make these massive cuts and deregulation across the province.

It's all very well to bring forward a much-needed bill, and we all agree that this is a good bill, but we want to hear the minister stand up and put, literally in this case, his money where his mouth is and make sure that the money that has been taken out of the area of monitoring and enforcement be put back. Otherwise, this is a great piece of legislation, which incidentally was put forward first by my colleague the member for Algoma when we were in government. All the research and work was done then -

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Did anybody give him any credit?

Ms Churley: Yes, in fact the government has been very fair in giving my colleague the member for Algoma credit for this. I guess the question is, why did it take so long, till the eve of an election almost, to bring it forward?

We're calling on the government today, as my party says, "Yes, we will support this bill," saying that we need to have the commitment that the enforcement is there to make it more than pretty words on a piece of paper. The kinds of activities we have seen taking place in this province since the deregulation, the kinds of things that have come up in this House: We've had a member of the Conservative government appeal to the Minister of the Environment not to enforce some laws because he was going to change it under the Red Tape Commission.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It was most interesting to hear the presentations from the member for Windsor-Walkerville and some of the responses from the member for Riverdale when they talk about money and reduction. Obviously, we can understand why they would talk about money. They're the ones who spent and really didn't worry about anything other than spending, building the debt and letting the deficit go. They've thrown money at literally everything from the environment to education and so on, and what has it accomplished? What it's done for us is a great big debt.

This bill is about improving enforcement without putting a whole lot of people out there to do the monitoring. For example, by putting a tracer either on the vehicle or in the load, they're able to follow where it's going and where it's moving. Before, it would take five or six people to constantly monitor one of these loads, where it's going, what's going to end up happening to it; with this kind of legislation we're going to be able to monitor that kind of movement, particularly of hazardous materials.

When you get right down to it, that's what we're concerned about, the hazardous materials - yes, and some of the other, non-hazardous waste which we want to go to the right place, but we're zeroing in on the priority, the really hazardous material. That's what's important and we'll be able to put in, by this legislation, that kind of tracer and follow it.

We're increasing the penalties to ensure that people, especially the polluters, will pay attention. There's something like $10 million on the books that were charged by the previous two governments. Sure, great charges, but they haven't collected it. It's sitting on the books. What good is laying charges if you don't have the teeth to go out and actually collect and make sure you get it?

It's really difficult to follow some of the comments they're making, but I can assure you that with this bill the polluters will be followed and they will pay.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'd first of all like to congratulate the member for Windsor-Walkerville, our critic in this area, on the excellent speech he gave.

Whenever the member for Northumberland gets up, within about two minutes he can literally destroy everything that has been said before that, or he tries to, anyway. He talked about something like enforcement without necessarily having enforcement officers. I don't know how you enforce any kind of rule and regulation if you don't have anybody enforcing it. Does he just feel that all of a sudden the polluters out there, because we have a law, are going to say: "Well, we'd better not do it any more. We know there are no enforcement officers out there, but after all, the province has passed a law"? It doesn't work that way in reality.

In reality, we know that this government has cut $121 million out of the Ministry of the Environment, some 42% of its budget. It has reduced the enforcement or the compliance staff from 97 individuals to 70 people in the province. Let's just hear what some of our own officers who are hired by this Legislative Assembly, by you and me and all the other members, have to say about this. This is the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, which we believe is a very important office. What does she say? She said: "If we continue along this path, our right to a healthy environment will be jeopardized.

We cannot afford to focus on short-term savings at the expense of long-term environmental health." She has basically condemned this government for all the negative actions that it's taken in the field of environment.

I say to the member for Northumberland, you cannot possibly have the best law in the world without the necessary enforcement element to make sure people out there, particularly the polluters, adhere to the law.

Mr Wildman: I want to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for his presentation and also his kind remarks regarding my private member's bill.

I must say that I am more than a little bit concerned by my friend from Northumberland's comments. He seems to be following a sort of Mackenzie King dictum: enforcement if necessary but not necessarily enforcement. Basically what he's saying is that under this bill it'll be possible to monitor by putting a tracker on a truck and monitor where the truck is going, but he doesn't think it necessary, as a matter of fact he's opposed to hiring the staff to go after that truck if it's found that it isn't going where it is supposed to be going.

The ministry hasn't got the staff to do it, but the member for Northumberland says, when it's suggested that monitors and enforcement officers be hired, that that is "Spend, spend, spend," and that's not a good idea.

The member for Northumberland is trying, like Mackenzie King, to have it both ways. He's trying to say, "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription." He's trying to say we can have better penalties or enforceable laws, we can prevent illegal dumping, without having the staff to do the work. It's ridiculous. This government has had sort of a Saul-like conversion on the road to Damascus, although I would call this a Norm conversion on the road to the election, in that they are bringing in a bill to say they are going to do something to get tough on polluters, but unless they hire the staff to do the enforcement, it won't mean anything.

The Deputy Speaker: It's my understanding that the comments and questions are to relate to the person who has deliberated in the debate. With that little bit of instruction, I would ask the member for Windsor-Walkerville to respond.

Mr Duncan: To the member for Northumberland, I can only say again, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, "We want better enforcement," and not have the tools by which to do it.

I want to follow up on the conversion on the road to Damascus. Biblical scholars will recall what happens to those who don't have the conversion: They turn to a pillar of salt. That is what the Minister of the Environment is in this mug's game, isn't he? It's a pillar of salt, because it's not really a conversion. He hasn't seen the light. What he has seen, with all due respect, is a cut to the resources of his ministry, a cut to the staff, a cut in his ability to enforce, a cut in his ability to prosecute.

Really, while we can support this Bill 82, nothing will happen until there is a change of government that will commit the resources, the time and the energy necessary to make these provisions that are going to be part of the four statutes we talked about earlier in order to have the tools necessary to enforce them.

It's really a sad legacy that this government will leave when it leaves office next year. It's a sad legacy to the environment, and it's another one of those messes that will have to be cleaned up properly. They will leave office next year, and their record and their legacy will be one of increased pollution and decreased enforcement, and one that really takes for granted our natural heritage in this province, whether it be environmental issues or natural resource issues. We look forward to this government's legacy being ended. It will be, and the proper enforcement mechanisms will be put in place.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Churley: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to share my leadoff time with the member for Hamilton Centre.

The Deputy Speaker: That is unnecessary.

Ms Churley: Well, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Centre in that case.

I want to start by reiterating what I believe a couple of members of my caucus, including one of our former ministers of the environment, the member for Algoma, said the other night when this bill was being debated. I want to thank the members for allowing me to give my leadoff speech today, because as the member for Algoma said that night, I was busy playing elf to Santa Claus, who was our esteemed Speaker, for the party. It was a good party, I must say, and we had a lot of fun. In the meantime, I want to thank the members who were here doing their duty and speaking sort of on my behalf that night.

I want to reiterate and say again that my caucus is supporting this bill.Obviously we're supporting the bill. It is not word for word, but most of the ideas in this bill, the research that was done, came from the time when the NDP was in government and it was very clear that this illegal dumping in particular was a problem. At that time, in 1993, our government initiated a crackdown on illegal dumping and started the process. We started a special task force which launched a whole series of investigations into what was happening and started an inspection program for trucks hauling the waste.

But it was very clear that the ministry officials did not have the tools they needed under the law to crack down and really enforce.

The legislation was brought forward by the member for Algoma while we were in government, and then, because an election was called before it came into law, he reintroduced the same bill and had all-party support. We kept waiting for the government of the day, the Harris government, to bring that bill forward. They kept saying they didn't need to bring in Mr Wildman's private member's bill because they were going to do it. Well, at long last, here we are debating this bill.

I'm happy to have it before us. I think it's a good bill. I must say, it is not often in this House, in fact it's probably the first time - and I hope not the last time - that I have had the opportunity to stand in this House and tell the government that I think they're doing a good thing.

Mr Marchese: Oh, God, that's hard.

Ms Churley: No, it's not hard. I believe it is our job as opposition to criticize but also to congratulate when the government is doing something right, and in this case they are doing something right. It is my job to let them know that's a fact, and I am very happy to see this legislation come forward.

Mr Marchese: Stealing things.

Ms Churley: Stealing things? If they want to steal good ideas, all the better. Again, I would say it's a good thing. When one government is defeated and some good legislation is left on the books, why start all over again? The issue is that in this case it appeared the government just let it sit there for a long time when it was ready to go, and in the meantime this illegal dumping continued without the government being able to initiate some of the initiatives in this bill because they didn't have the tools. I'm happy that the government is now coming forward with the bill and we will soon have the ability to actually enforce the bill put forward by my colleague from Algoma some time ago.

The problem has been pointed out, and simply must be pointed out again, because, as I said, I consider it my job as the critic for the environment for the NDP caucus to congratulate the government when they do something right and something good for the environment for a change, but also to talk about my concerns.

In this case, unfortunately, I have a great deal of concern, for the same reasons that every member of my party who has spoken to this bill has already mentioned - and by the way, not just the opposition parties in the House. I know the government does not like to listen to the opposition. It's made it very clear it doesn't listen to anybody except its big business friends. However, just for the record, you must be well aware that it's not just the opposition criticizing this government for its pitiful environmental record.

We have had report after report come forward over the past few years telling the government how bad its environmental record is and how it is negatively affecting our environment and our health.

There have been reports from the North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation; from CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association; from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation; from the Environmental Commissioner for Ontario; from the OMA, the Ontario Medical Association; from the International Joint Commission; the Acidifying Emissions Task Group of the National Air Issues Coordinating Committee; the North East States for Coordinated Air Use Management; and the University of Toronto. That's to name some of the reports. There's also the Ontario auditor, who has been mentioned in this House.

The David Suzuki Foundation recently came out - some of these reports have been quite specific on air pollution and some of them have run the gamut, have gone through in great detail this government's pitiful environmental record.

What they all say and what all of these reports have in common is that the amou