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

October 16, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L109 - Wed 16 Oct 1996 / Mer 16 Oct 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

WOMEN'S HEALTH ISSUES

ONTARIO FOOD INDUSTRY

NIAGARA DETENTION CENTRE

YMCA NORTHERN CHILD CARE CENTRE

GREEN HOME CENTRE

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BREAST CANCER

FIRE SERVICES

BREAST CANCER

FIRE SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

TAX REDUCTION

TVONTARIO / TÉLÉVISION FRANCOPHONE DE L'ONTARIO

HEALTH INSURANCE

ONTARIO HYDRO

SMALL BUSINESS

WATER TESTING

PREMIER'S VISIT TO SAULT STE MARIE

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

TAX REDUCTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HEALTH INSURANCE

CHILD CARE

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

RENT REGULATION

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

NURSING STAFF

BEAR HUNTING

SALE OF AMMUNITION

ANIMAL WELFARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ABORTION

GASOLINE PRICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IMPAIRED DRIVING), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUITE AVEC FACULTÉS AFFAIBLIES)

OPPOSITION DAY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Yesterday I rose in this House to bring to members' attention the particulars of a meeting taking place with 11 organizations representing the disabled, the sick and the elderly. The focus of this meeting with the Toronto Transit Commission was to plead with this government to reinstate funding for the Wheel-Trans system.

Over 20 groups attended yesterday to reprimand the government on its actions, which are obviously driven more by the bottom line than by the needs of the disabled community. I want to once again draw to members' attention that many of these vulnerable constituents are doubly affected because they lack the strength and confidence to go through the screening and appeal processes.

I wish to address every member of this House in saying that the constituents from your riding are among those being affected by these cuts. People from your own community are pleading for this government assistance and cooperation.

The Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Community and Social Services will be asked to restore funding for Wheel-Trans. I urge each member to speak up now on behalf of these potential shut-ins: the elderly, sick and disabled. I urge the government to reinstate funding for vital needs and the Wheel-Trans service.

WOMEN'S HEALTH ISSUES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My statement today is directed to the Minister of Health and the minister responsible for women's issues, who I hope will want to meet their obligation as advocates for women's reproductive choice. I urge them to speak up in cabinet in favour of securing a comprehensive policy on women's reproductive health, including support for RU-486, commonly known as the abortion pill, which has already cleared clinical trials and is in use in several countries in Europe.

RU-486 works by cutting off hormones needed to sustain pregnancy in the very early stages, literally in the hours and days following conception. This avoids the necessity of using more costly surgical procedures at a later date. The Minister of Finance will want to take note here as well.

It's apparent from media reports that the company that manufactures RU-486 will only seek trials if there is demonstrable government and societal support. I urge our government to begin today to create that climate of support so that this may join the range of options for women in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy.

Finally, Canadians continue to support a woman's right to reproductive choice. It's time for our provincial and federal governments to do the same by working together. It's time for a comprehensive policy on women's reproductive health that includes not only access to abortion services, but also sex education, contraception and disease prevention.

ONTARIO FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): In recognition of World Food Day and with the memory of Thanksgiving fresh in our minds, I would ask the honourable members to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in this nation, with its bounty of safe and nutritious food.

It is an unfortunate truth that even as we approach the 21st century the spectre of world hunger is still with us. Population growth, climatic change and shrinking arable land are pressuring our food supply and increasing our need for intensified agricultural production. But I am also pleased to say that Ontario's agriculture industry is contributing greatly to the fight against hunger.

Our farmers, through genetic selection, better management strategies and nutrition knowledge, are producing more food using less land, animals and feed than ever before. The efficiency of Ontario farmers is unparalleled. They are responsible for feeding 11 million Ontarians and millions more across the world.

Our agricultural food sector is contributing as well. Ontario food companies and grocery retailers are doing their part to ensure that children here at home receive proper nutrition at school. This government supports this initiative and this sector. Last May, our government provided up to $5 million in startup funding for child nutrition programs.

We should both respect and applaud the efforts of the men and women of our agriculture and food system.

NIAGARA DETENTION CENTRE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Now that the government of Ontario has had time to reflect upon its announced decision to close the Niagara Detention Centre, many in Niagara hope that the minister will reconsider this ill-advised move which has been questioned by knowledgeable people in the field of correctional services. Not only will the closing of the centre be unhelpful in the efficient operation of our local courts, but it will also reduce the opportunity for local organizations to counsel those who are detained in an effort to reduce the chances of prisoners recommitting crimes.

With a capacity of 256 inmates and the fact that the building is only 22 years old, it appears to be foolish to close the facility and remove yet another 130 employment positions from the Niagara region.

Jim Wells, executive director of the John Howard Society in Niagara, predicts that within a few years the problem will force the province to change course and set up more community-based programs.

Anyone who is aware of the most effective way to rehabilitate offenders will realize that family contact and local services nearby reduce the chances of inmates remaining on the offending path. Along with the closing of the community resource centre or halfway house, we have taken a major step backward in correctional services in the Niagara region. I call upon the minister to change course and keep it open.

YMCA NORTHERN CHILD CARE CENTRE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In 1993, through the efforts of Alexander Henry High School staff, the child care barrier for young mothers, in their desire to return to school, was recognized as a need in my community. The Sault YMCA generously moved into action and put together a plan.

Research indicates that there were only a few programs in Canada with the uniqueness of this program of the YMCA Northern Child Care Centre: The parents had to maintain participation as full-time students in secondary school; the parents had to be receiving social assistance; the child care service was available to parents attending any high school within either board of education in Sault Ste Marie.

The YMCA Northern Child Care Centre has been open since January 31, 1994, and during those five semesters, ending June 1996, very positive results have been created. Some 62 different parents, with 73 children, have participated; 20 have graduated from high school, five continued in secondary school using the child care in September 1996 and nine parents had children graduate to elementary school. Child and parent are both gone.

In 1995 the provincial government's social assistance reform directly impacted this program in two ways: The parent, besides receiving a reduced amount of social assistance, was now required to pay a daily fee; more significantly, the program, which had been funded 100% by the province, would now revert back to the traditional funding split with the municipality at an 80%-20% divide. The YMCA and the Kiwanis Club in Sault Ste Marie have come to the aid of this centre and have saved it.

GREEN HOME CENTRE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Three months ago a new retail store called the Green Home Centre opened in the Quinte area. As an alternative to paying to take good-quality used building materials to a landfill, or to dropping them at your curb, this store accepts materials at no cost. If you drop these items at the store, you receive a discount coupon for future purchases, or you can take advantage of their free pickup service.

Thanks to the wide acceptance and participation of businesses and individuals in the Quinte area, the Green Home Centre has so far diverted over 110 tonnes of building, construction and gardening material back into use. With an annual projection of over 400 tonnes, the store is already surpassing many other more established reuse centres across Ontario.

As an active member of the business community, the Green Home Centre provides customers with a wide variety of inexpensive building and gardening materials, saves municipalities infrastructure costs and provides a valuable alternative to the high cost of disposal.

I would like to commend the Green Home Centre on their efforts so far and wish them continued success in the future.

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am pleased to announce the recipient of our first inaugural Dinosaur Award. I'd like to share with the House the criteria for the selection. The criteria for the minister who would receive the reward are: the one most likely to turn back the hands of time and bring Ontario back to the Stone Age; the ability to make shortsighted decisions, destroying everything in its path; the minister most likely to introduce legislation that shows a complete lack of regard for the public at large.

That recipient is none other than our Minister of Education and Training, Mr Snobelen, following a very long and arduous process, I must say, where there was a legion of ministers up for the award, including environment, women's affairs, but none other than --

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member has a prop in front of her, and I think it's not proper to have this in the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I was listening very carefully. I thought there could be some opportunity for her to be out of order. I've not heard it yet. You may continue.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I tell you that again, following a long --

The Speaker: I apologize to the member for Lambton. I didn't see the sign. If you could remove the sign, I'd appreciate it. I apologize.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Speaker, if I may continue.

The Minister of Education and Training has shown, time and time again, his complete lack of regard for, in this case, students across Ontario. A cut of $1 billion from education is seriously hampering the right of every student in Ontario for --

The Speaker: Your time is up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I understand that you had some time taken. I will say that the point of order raised by the member for Lambton was in order. You did have a sign up; it was your time. I think that if you had not had that up, you would have had an opportunity to finish your statement. Let's move on.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to rise today and urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to move off his wishy-washy position regarding becoming involved in the impasse in the regional government of Hamilton-Wentworth. His position is, when called to step in and provide leadership, "I want them to sort it out but it sounds as if they may need some help in doing that." This is a long-standing problem recently brought to a head by a vote at regional council to abolish the council, which is juxtaposed against a position taken by the city of Hamilton to eliminate the region and go to a supercity where Hamilton would amalgamate all the outlying areas.

Both positions are untenable, and the minister knows that. I think he's hiding behind the fact that he's got a political problem locally. He's got two Tories who like the idea of the regional position, he's got one Tory who supports the idea of one tier and the minister stepping in and he's got a member on Hamilton Mountain who's got a foot in both camps.

I clearly have said that the minister ought to step in and use the constituent assembly report as the basis. There's a year-long public input process there. There's expert research material backing up their findings. Rather than hiding behind your partisan political problems, step in and show some leadership.

While you're so supportive of local options, remind the Minister of Health that we've already got a local option on health care that the government can stand behind and stay out of.

NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): Please join me in welcoming to the Legislature the Canadian Co-operative Association and representatives of Ontario's co-ops and in congratulating them as they celebrate National Co-op Week.

Cooperatives have had a long and successful tradition here in Ontario and around the world. They show how much people can achieve when they work together, pool resources and share skills for the benefit of their members and communities. Co-ops help people obtain goods and services they may not otherwise be able to afford by pooling members' purchasing power.

Today more than two million people belong to Ontario's 1,400 co-ops and 500 credit unions and caisses populaires. With their combined assets of over $15 billion, co-ops play a significant role in Ontario's economy.

This evening the Canadian Co-operative Association is hosting its annual MPP reception in the legislative dining room from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the House to attend and learn more about how co-ops benefit their communities.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today members of Parliament from New South Wales, Mr Bryce Gaudry and Mr Andrew Fraser.

Could you also welcome Dr Abdul Salam Al Abbadi, Minister of Aqwaf, Islamic Affairs and Holy Places in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BREAST CANCER

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I rise today during Breast Cancer Awareness Month to announce a very important investment to improve the health and lives of women in Ontario. This morning I had the privilege of joining the Premier at Princess Margaret Hospital to announce an Ontario government investment of $24.3 million to expand the Ontario breast screening program.

There is no doubt that breast cancer exacts an all-too-devastating toll on women, their families and their friends. It's estimated that in this year alone about 7,100 Ontario women will develop breast cancer and that about 2,000 women will die from the disease.

This new funding will expand the capacity of the Ontario breast screening program by some 400%, meaning that by the year 2000 we will be able to screen 325,000 women each year at over 40 sites across the province. In the near term, new sites are expected to open in Chatham, Sarnia, Listowel, Niagara Falls, St Catharines, Belleville, Trenton, Ottawa, Timmins and Barrie, with others to follow over the next three years.

I commend the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario breast screening program for their excellent work. In particular, I thank Dr Charles Hollenberg, the CEO of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, and Dr Susan Aitken, the director of the Ontario breast screening program. Their dedication to the better health of Ontarians is a model for all of us to follow.

I know too that there are many other volunteers and community groups around the province that also make a tremendous contribution to the ongoing success of this program. Your work is vitally important and I offer, on behalf of the government, my sincere appreciation to all of you.

To its credit, the previous Liberal government began a breast screening program in 1989 and the NDP modestly expanded it during its term in office. We are building today upon those beginnings.

The members of this House will know that this government is committed to ensuring that health care spending is maintained at $17.4 billion. It's a daunting task in face of the $2.1-billion cut or reduction in transfer payments from the federal Liberal government. To do this and to maintain quality in health care, we must restructure the health care system and we must reinvest the savings we achieve into community care, new drugs, technology and medical procedures that save lives, such as breast screening.

Unfortunately, breast cancer is one of the two leading causes of cancer deaths among Ontario women -- lung cancer is the other -- but we also know that most breast problems can be treated if they are discovered early. Studies have shown that screening women aged 50 and over in an organized program like the Ontario breast screening program can substantially reduce deaths from this disease.

What makes the Ontario breast screening program so important to women aged 50 and over is that the program provides much more than just a mammogram; it includes an examination by a specially trained nurse. All the sites that are part of the program have consistent and high-quality standards.

We are making this announcement today so thousands more Ontario women can have access to this organized screening program. The Ontario breast screening program wants to reach as many women over age 50 as possible, and to do that it provides information in French and five other languages: German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Chinese. A mobile van supports the program in northwestern Ontario. It's stationed in Thunder Bay and travels to communities in that region of the province.

I firmly believe that our health care system is among the best in the world, one envied by many other countries. As minister, I intend to make sure we sustain and strengthen that excellence. This reinvestment in the Ontario breast screening program is just one more way we are committed to achieving that goal.

FIRE SERVICES

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm pleased to announce to the House that later today we will be introducing the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. This piece of legislation is the strongest of its kind in Canada. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the issues surrounding fire services are finally being dealt with.

This legislation will provide a new framework for fire protection in Ontario. It will improve public safety, streamline services and reduce costs. It will allow municipalities in all parts of the province to provide the highest possible level of fire safety in the most efficient way.

The legislation we are introducing is the product of a long process of consultation with municipalities, firefighters and fire chiefs.

Some of the individuals involved in that process of consultation are in the gallery today: Harold Tulk, the president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs; Tom Powell, the chief in Scarborough; Alan Speed, the chief in the city of North York; Peter Ferguson, the acting chief in the city of Toronto; Terry Allen, the chief of the city of Cambridge; Dave Carruthers, who's the president of the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario, representing Ontario's volunteers; and Bernie Moyle, the fire marshal of Ontario. Gentlemen, thank you for your hard work and dedication.

Change is long overdue and we are determined to complete the reform of this essential service. The result will be safer communities. This reform is a demonstration of the government's continuing commitment to public safety.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act is part of the government's municipal restructuring program. It will give municipalities the flexibility to find the best ways of providing local services that meet local circumstances. It will ensure the effective delivery of fire protection services by municipalities, with the assistance of the province, but it will also encourage municipalities to match appropriate and affordable fire suppression facilities with effective fire prevention and public education programs. Such fire prevention and public education programs will be mandatory.

In addition, the Public Fire Safety Council will be strengthened to play a greater role in fire prevention and public education and to encourage greater participation in this field by the private sector.

We know that fire losses could have been avoided and many tragedies averted with more effective public education and with better fire prevention. Data gathered over the years by the office of the fire marshal indicates that 80% of fires are accidental and could have been avoided with greater fire prevention and public education. Meanwhile, more than 30 coroners' juries have called for a more coordinated approach to fire safety and fire protection. We support that approach and this legislation reflects those goals.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act will streamline the legislation affecting fire protection in Ontario by consolidating no fewer than nine separate statutes. It will cut the red tape that has hampered the fire services and impeded the development of effective fire protection and fire prevention measures. To cite just one example, it will eliminate the duplication and redundancy that makes it necessary under the current system to have both an Accidental Fires Act and a Fire Accidents Act.

The new legislation will consolidate the rules affecting the fire services in a single, straightforward legislative framework. It will ensure that effective education and prevention programs are provided in every municipality in Ontario. It will give Ontario the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada and it will save lives.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was reading through the statement that was provided to the opposition, and the cheap shot at previous governments is not included --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for St Catharines, I have no idea what you're reading from. I'm not supplied a copy of the statement. I listened to the statement. I heard the statement. I heard nothing out of order.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: If the minister intended the cheap shot to be included, there's obviously been a typing problem.

The Speaker: Responses. The member for Timiskaming.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I can clarify this for you, Mr Speaker. I have the complete statement of the minister. He neglected to read his fourth paragraph, which is a cheap shot at previous governments. I guess he decided not to do that.

Minister, in the compendium of this statement there are 12 different areas of the numerous acts that are going to be brought together here and it's going to take us a while to get through them and to give you the comments and the critical look they deserve, but that will come at a later time in this House, in debate, and in committee.

There are two concerns today, though, that I would certainly like to discuss with you, and those are the concern of offloading a lot of these responsibilities to municipalities and also the concern about the labour relations provisions. I think the minister must realize it's been an unwritten moral code among firefighters that they never go on strike, and for you today to put in this act that it is now illegal for them to go on strike smacks at the very heart of the firefighting code they're always there to protect and to save lives in this province.

We have never had a problem. There has never been an injury or a death caused in this province because firefighters refused the call of duty to protect the citizens. They don't need that, Minister, and I hope you will withdraw that some day, because that is a slap in the face of firefighters right across this province that should never happen.

The other change I'm a little concerned about is the private sector involvement that you want to see increased in the fire safety programs. We've already heard about user fees for fire inspections and car fires and perhaps we're going to see more of that. My colleague here tells me of a Scarborough nursing home that has its alarm so finely tuned up to code that they have had false alarms and now they face, in three months, $3,000 worth of fines because they are bringing it up to the code they need to. I think we need a bit of latitude here and I hope you will rethink some of this before you bring forward the legislation.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health and say to him that I remember very well the day in 1989 when I stood in this Legislature as Minister of Health and announced the breast screening program. At that time I never imagined it would be beyond the year 2000 before all women in this province would have access to lifesaving breast screening. So while this announcement is welcome to the women of this province, it is yet four more years away from being fully available to the people of this province who need it, and that is women over the age of 50.

Similarly, along that line, I point out to the minister that I too congratulate the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, Dr Charles Hollenberg, and Dr Susan Aitken, the director of the Ontario breast screening program. I also congratulate all those who are working on the front line of cancer care, particularly those who are dealing with unprecedented cuts to cancer care in the form of hospital base budgets unprecedented in this province. They are struggling and doing an incredible job against all odds. When Premier Harris said he would not touch one penny in health care, people thought that meant he would not cut base budgets of cancer hospitals, but we know the truth.

There is one issue I would like to commend to the minister, and that is that when the breast screening program was initially announced, it was always intended those programs would have direct contact with the women who would benefit; that is, the women over the age of 50. The ministry could provide and it was always intended would provide them with the ability to contact those people directly. I believe it was misguided to not permit that to happen and I hope the minister will reinstate the direct contact program.

The breast screening programs want it, they need it, and unless women have real access by knowing it is available to them in their communities, then they will not be able to benefit from the lifesaving provisions of the breast screening program. I say to the minister, please look into the whole ability of those clinics to directly contact the women in those communities to allow that to occur. That is something I think he will agree is extremely important if he looks into it.

The last thing I want to say about this is that a lot of people have worked long and hard to make sure the breast screening program is of consistent quality across the province. I was pleased the minister acknowledged that because one of the advantages of a screening program is that you can have the kind of quality assurance this program has.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I want to respond briefly to the Minister of Health. I would like to congratulate him and the CEO of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the others who have worked very hard over the years with our government and the Liberal government to make sure we advance in the screening programs. It's a good thing we're moving forward today. More needs to be done and that's very important.

I would like to say that I wonder how many of these hospitals will still be left open and how many of these skilled nurses will still be there at the end of your cutting and slashing of the health care system in Ontario. I hope they all will be.

I also briefly want to comment that while I applaud this effort, I want to point out to the minister that it is now recognized that a majority of cancers are caused by external factors, including organochlorines and many other thousands of carcinogens out there that we now know contribute to cancer. As the minister knows, there was a resolution passed in this House that we form an all-party committee, and those with the expertise, to work on phasing out carcinogens and other cancer-causing substances in our environment. To date, Minister, you have done nothing.

We know these chemicals cause the vast majority of cancers. So while I applaud this effort, we must continue to create even more screening for women. We absolutely now have to start on the front end and start preventing cancer. I urge the minister today to come forward and form this committee that is very badly needed.

FIRE SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm pleased to respond to the statement by the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services and to point out to him that he neglected to introduce some people who are in the west gallery who are probably very important to all of us: the professional firefighters of this province. Bruce Carpenter, who is the president of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Firefighters, and Jim Lee, who is the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, are here but they weren't included by you, Minister, in any consultations. They have asked you again and again for meaningful consultations --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I ask those in the members' gallery, please, you're not allowed to shout out.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, you have refused again and again to have meaningful consultation with the men and women in this province who deliver front-line fire services. You have consultation with management, you have consultation with municipalities, but you have consistently refused to have meaningful consultation with the professional firefighters in this province. There's a good reason for that, because although there are many good things in the bill you propose to introduce today, one of the things you plan to do here is to change the labour relations regime for professional firefighters in this province.

You don't mention that in your statement, but in the compendium it is very clear that there will be a change in that relationship.

For example, you are going to be imposing a 12-month probationary period regardless of what's in the collective agreements that are there. You are going to impose an aid provision that pays no attention to the contracting-out provisions in those collective agreements. What is more, Minister, it is not clear, because there has been no consultation, exactly what the role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board is going to be with respect to professional firefighters.

You owe it to the professional firefighters of this province to have real consultation with them. They wrote to you on October 7, right after the Crombie commission recommendations came out, and begged you to meet with them to talk about those recommendations, to talk about the problems, and you did not. You meet with these people on a hail-fellow-well-met basis, but you will not have meaningful consultation; you will not use their expertise and their commitment.

It is indeed, as my friend from Timiskaming said, a slap in the face for the professional firefighters of this province to have you include a no-strike provision. There has never been a work stoppage from professional firefighters in this province. That is not something they would condone. They have never condoned it. They find it insulting that your act is a thinly veiled attempt to destroy their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members.

One of the other issues is that you've made fire prevention programs mandatory. You still have not made fire suppression services mandatory for municipalities in this province, according to your own compendium. It is very real that we need prevention services, but suppression is also important.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My first question is to the Solicitor General and it concerns your ongoing coverup of the involvement of organized crime in the manufacturing and distribution of video slot machines in this province. I use the term "coverup" deliberately, because the more we know about what your government knew and when they knew it, the more it becomes clear how sordid this video gambling affair is.

Minister, I have here in my hands a letter from the Metropolitan Toronto Police and in it the police are very, very clear and they say, and I quote: "I believe those who predict the legalization of VLTs will lessen or eliminate illegal VLTs are incorrect." It also says that they would like to draw your attention to the position of the Criminal Intelligence Service chair that the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario is not in favour of video lottery terminals.

My question is this: Does it not occur to you, Mr Solicitor General, as the top cop in this province, to tell the people of this province that there are major concerns about the involvement of organized crime in the introduction of slot machines and is that not your responsibility to prepare a special report?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I resent the use of the term "coverup." I think if there is a coverup here perhaps it's the fact that we barely recognize this member. Perhaps there's a coverup under way in terms of his membership in this assembly, I'm not sure. But with respect to a coverup about --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated on a number of occasions now that this is not a government report, it was commissioned by the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario. Those reports are developed on a number of occasions throughout the year by CISO and government is not privy to the existence of those reports, let alone gaining access to them.

I've indicated that it would be unprecedented for a member of government, especially a Solicitor General, to request access to that kind of a report. The fact that this report was developed was public knowledge back in March and I indicated earlier the standing committee reviewing Bill 75 opted not to call any witnesses from CISO.

Mr Kennedy: It's becoming very clear to everyone in this House and to the public of Ontario how desperate the government is, if that's the nature of the answer, the best answer the Solicitor General can muster.

We've heard that you maybe were out of the loop so badly that you didn't know the report existed; then you remember reading the report in your absentmindedness. But there's a third explanation: Your government is so desperate for the money coming from slot machines it's prepared to go to any lengths to cover up this information which we raised in committee. This letter from the Metropolitan police was raised in committee in August and your government has deliberately ignored it.

Minister, I have in my hand a second public document, this time a study of video slot machines by the coordinated law enforcement units in British Columbia, released to the public and in it you can read about how in New Brunswick the government intended to own slot machines when they were legalized. Organized criminals became some of the legal owners. You'll find out about warehouse bombings by some of the companies that they name in Quebec.

My question, Mr Solicitor General, is, if the Attorney General's office in British Columbia can prepare and publicly release a study, not just in BC but across Canada, can't you produce that study here and live up to your responsibility as Solicitor General to tell us how organized crime is affecting video slot machines in this province?

Hon Mr Runciman: The member indicated in his question, I think, that this was prepared by the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Attorney General in British Columbia. There's a significant difference here. We're talking about an agency which is not connected in any way, shape or form with government. This is an independent body that developed this report, so I think there's a very clear distinction.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order please, the member for Sudbury.

Hon Mr Runciman: In terms of policing reports or other reports, the Canadian chiefs' association has made public a report dealing with this question and takes quite the opposite view with respect to legalization of VLTs. In fact, legalization, the chiefs' report indicates, will have an impact on the proliferation of illegal machines in any jurisdiction.

There are a variety of reports on this, but in terms of getting feedback from the policing community, I do meet with Chief Fantino, I've indicated that, and other members of the chiefs on a number of occasions. They've conveyed their concerns, but with respect to details on this particular report, that remains a document for the intelligence community in policing.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, let me just summarize what the police have told you. The RCMP have told us that organized crime is moving in on gambling in Canada just when police are losing their manpower, an area where you do have some responsibility, if small in this House. You don't need a briefing note to see that, it's been in the newspaper. The Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario has told us that organized crime is involved. The head of that service has said they do not want video gambling machines.

In New Brunswick we found that organized crime does get involved when government tries to legalize and the police here in Metro Toronto have told you that legalized slot machines will not drive out illegal ones.

Minister, are you so reckless and irresponsible that you would ignore the advice of the police? Are you so consumed, with your colleagues, by the need for the money that you will not live up to your responsibility and tell the Premier and your colleagues that this bill has to be withdrawn, that Bill 75 cannot proceed until we fully understand the effects of organized crime on video slot machines?

Hon Mr Runciman: It's somewhat ironic that if anyone promoted the growth of organized gambling in this province it was the Liberals in a very deregulated way.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Essex South, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: We have recognized legitimate concerns with respect to organized crime and we are addressing them in a very effective way. The Treasurer has made comments with respect to ensuring that adequate resources are put into this. We've made that commitment time and time again. If there are policing concerns, we are not hearing them. We've indicated to the policing community that we're going to address these concerns that they've had in earlier times related to initiatives undertaken by the Liberals and the NDP, that we are going to deal with this concern in a much more effective way than has been the case in the past. We're committed to that.

Mr Kennedy: My second question is also to the Solicitor General on the same subject. This morning my office spoke to the acting deputy chief of the Metropolitan Police Force, Paul Gottschalk. Minister, the deputy chief, available by telephone, was very clear: Video gambling machines will be a nightmare for police in this city.

Who are we supposed to believe? Are we supposed to believe that you know more about policing and the impact of these machines or the deputy police chief who says your plan will lead to more crime and will be a nightmare for police?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated to you earlier that in terms of the policing community feedback we've had, it's been on the basis that if you're moving ahead with the legalization of VLTs, you ensure that adequate resources are committed to effective policing, and we've made that commitment from day one.

Mr Kennedy: We see nothing of that commitment reflected anywhere. We have reports from the OPP, from the RCMP, from Chief Fantino, who heads up the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, and all of them are saying the same thing. They fear that your plan to bring video slot machines out of controlled environments and into every bar and restaurant across Ontario will create great new costs. So for example, in Metropolitan Toronto, there are four officers currently dealing with gambling. They would need 100 even to begin to have an impact.

Mr Solicitor General, we're asking you today, are you prepared to make that commitment, to make that 25-fold increase in policing to be able to deal with this and is that where you want to see the criminal resources -- the resources to deal with crime -- in this province directed, to this new criminal activity that you'll be developing just because your government is so desperate to have the money from these video gambling machines? Will you make that commitment today, Mr Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Runciman: One of the things we've heard is the widespread proliferation of illegal machines in this province, not just machines but with betting, gaming houses as well. That kind of a concern and issue has not been dealt with in an effective way by either the Liberal government or the NDP government. We've made a commitment that we are going to deal with those kinds of issues in a very effective way, unlike what happened in the past. I can indicate to the member that we will have some announcements in that regard in the not-too-distant future.

Mr Kennedy: It's very hard to believe that this is the government that ran on a law-and-order platform in the last election. People all across the province are watching and wondering what is happening to that idea. Your scheme to bring video gambling machines into every bar and restaurant will lead to more crime. You know it, the police know it and everyone in this province is starting to know it. It's not just a question of the number of machines; it's a question of being able to open them up and tell whether they're legal or illegal, it's a question of whether they're controlled and it's a question of having the manpower far beyond anything that's been talked about to enforce it.

Minister, why don't you admit that this government does not care about the new crime that you're bringing on, that the money matters more, that you don't care what impact they'll have on vulnerable people and creating new addictions and that the responsibilities of ensuring that the police forces aren't overwhelmed by this new source of crime do not matter to this government, because there is nothing at all in the legislation, not one line --

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Kennedy: Tell us, Mr Solicitor General, once more whether you will hold up the legislation and allow us to introduce safety measures so that organized crime doesn't become proliferated simply because of the decisions of your government.

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated quite clearly the kinds of initiatives we're going to undertake to ensure that the concerns the member is expressing do not develop --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood, come to order.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- unlike what his government did while it was in power in 1985 to 1990 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- and unlike what the NDP did during its tenure in power. For this member to indicate that we are somehow not fulfilling our commitment with respect to justice issues, I can say that the justice community, the law enforcement community, feels much more confident --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We said no to VLTs. They were proposed to us and we said no to VLTs.

The Speaker: The member for Algoma, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- with this party in power than it ever did during the days of those two parties in power. You can look at a whole range of issues in the justice field, ranging from strict discipline and dealing with young offenders in a much more effective way, dealing with victims of crime --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- in a much more effective way, being accessible to the police community on virtually every issue.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: We have a record that we're very proud of with respect to justice issues. We have nothing to apologize for. Those two parties across the floor have a great deal to apologize for.

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

Interjections.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Speaker, you might want to get an aspirin for the Solicitor General.

The Speaker: Order; I can't hear you. Order.

Mr Hampton: I have an urgent question for the Premier; it concerns the situation at General Motors. But the Premier's not here today, so I'll save that question for tomorrow. Hopefully, he'll be here.

The Speaker: Who's your question to?

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. Last spring, you and the Premier said very clearly, "We are through cutting." You said that no more cuts would be necessary, that your scheme to give $6 billion to the wealthiest people in the province would finance itself. In fact, the Premier very clearly said: "We're done cutting. We're through cutting." Now we're hearing from Conservative officials who say that another $3 billion will have to be cut.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance, are you going to cut another $3 billion, and where is it going to come from? From health care, from education, from seniors, from kids, from communities? Where are you going to make the cuts, Minister?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the leader of the third party: As he fully knows, in the Common Sense document our government committed to reducing expenditures by some $6 billion. He should know better than anybody else and his party should know better than any other party in the Legislature that there is absolutely no way one was going to achieve the deficit target that the previous government had set and that in fact if prompt action wasn't taken, the deficit for the 1995-96 fiscal year, the deficit for the year we went into government --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, third party.

Hon Mr Eves: -- would have been $11.2 billion. So we have said all along that we would have to reduce the $6 billion that we committed to doing plus the $2 billion that they padded the books by before they left office in June 1995.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: The Conservative members can raise as much noise as they want. The real problem you've got, Deputy Premier, is you gave away $6 billion in revenue. The budget would be within the possibility of balancing had you not given away $6 billion, and $6 billion more next year and more the year after that, to your wealthy friends. That's your problem, and that's why you're going to have to cut more.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): What are you talking about? You're so out to lunch you don't know what you're talking about.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the government whip to come to order and the Attorney General. Order. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: You see, the Attorney General is more worried about how much money he is going to get by this phoney tax break than he is worried about the law enforcement system in the province.

Deputy Premier, we see how your phoney tax scheme is working. The president of the Bank of Commerce is going to get about a $50,000 tax break, the president of the Royal Bank is going to get about a $50,000 tax break, but we're not seeing any jobs for working people. Thirty-five thousand jobs disappeared in September, and there are 57,000 more people unemployed now than last year at this time.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: I want to ask you again, how much are you going to cut? How much will you have to cut to finance your phoney tax scheme, and where are you going to cut? Are you going to take it from kids? Are you going to take it from seniors?

The Speaker: Put the question.

Mr Hampton: Are you going to take it from law enforcement? Are you going to take it from health care? Where is it going to come from?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the member might be interested to know that there were 99,000 more people working in the province of Ontario in September 1996 than were working in September 1995. There are 99,000 more people who have jobs. Coming from a party that in its entire tenure in government lost 10,000 jobs in the province in five years, why are you standing here criticizing a government that was in place while 99,000 jobs were being created?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's what you said you were going to do. The unemployment rate is up.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Eves: What is wrong with you?

Mr Hampton: Only a Conservative government that doesn't give a whit, doesn't give a care about the unemployed would brag when the unemployment rate goes from 8.5% to 9.2% and 35,000 jobs are lost in one month.

I've asked the question twice and I'm going to ask it again. We know you're prepared to climb in bed with organized crime to get money to finance your tax break. We know that; we've seen that over the last couple of weeks. You're quite prepared to climb in bed with organized crime in order to get money out of video slot machines.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the leader of the third party to withdraw that comment. That is totally unparliamentary and unacceptable.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw the comment. The government is prepared to dance with organized crime in terms of video slot machines to get the money.

The Speaker: Order. Finally, no dancing or climbing into bed. I would ask you to withdraw the comment.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw that. The government is prepared to have a cosy relationship with organized crime in terms of video slot machines.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I say to the leader of the third party, this is the final warning. Either withdraw the comment --

Interjections.

The Speaker: With all due respect to the third party and the member for Windsor-Riverside, I think associating the government with organized crime is out of order. I ask the leader --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Finally, I say to the leader of the third party, either withdraw the comment --

Mr Hampton: The government is prepared to ignore the involvement of organized crime with video slot machines because it is so desperate for revenue to finance its tax break. But we know that in addition to taking the money from video slot machines, you're going to have to make some cuts.

I ask you again: Where are you going to cut? Is it going to be kids this time? Is it going to be seniors? Is it going to be schools? Is it going to be health care? Where are you going to cut now in order to finance your phoney tax scheme for the wealthy?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows full well that we have indicated all along that we would have to make $8 billion worth of cuts on an annualized basis to achieve our targets.

Mr Marchese: Try answering the question, Ernie. Don't be ignoring it.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York, I warn you to come to order.

Hon Mr Eves: Unlike the previous government that missed its deficit target by $2 billion in one year, our target for last year was $9.3 billion; we achieved $8.7 billion. We will continue to achieve our deficit targets. We will balance the books in the province of Ontario by the year 2000 despite the efforts of your party and your party to build up a $100-billion debt.

We're doing all this while leaving more money in the hands of hardworking, taxpaying Ontarians. I know you don't want to hear that.

Mr Hampton: The president of the Bank of Commerce, Frank Stronach, the president of the Royal Bank, the president of the chamber of commerce, they all thank you, Ernie.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party, come to order.

Hon Mr Eves: The fact is that there are 99,000 more people working today in the province of Ontario --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the leader of the third party to come to order. It's question period. You get to put the questions; they get to answer them.

A new question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I would say to the government, even their own right-wing think tank, the Fraser Institute, says they're going to have to cut $2 billion. So come clean and say where you're going to cut it.

TVONTARIO / TÉLÉVISION FRANCOPHONE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have another question on cuts. It's to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. You are racing ahead with your plans to privatize some of the most valuable public assets in this province. You're going to sell off important capital assets, again because you need the money to finance your tax break. In your case, it's TVOntario that's going to be the victim: TVOntario, which is watched by literally hundreds of thousands of children across this province, which provides non-violent, educational television.

I want to ask the minister, as you sell TVOntario in order to meet your bottom line reduction targets, what do you have to say to those kids who enjoy high-quality, educational, violence-free and commercial-free television on TVOntario? What do you have to say to them?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): To the leader of the third party, first of all, it should come as no surprise to anyone in this House that we have been saying -- indeed we identified TVO as a potential candidate for privatization as early as May 1995 when we announced it in the Common Sense Revolution. So clearly it should come as no surprise that TVO is indeed a candidate for privatization.

Having said that, as I have consistently said for the last 15 or 16 months, until that privatization framework has been completed, no decisions will be made with respect to TVO.

Mr Hampton: As I suspected, the minister has nothing to say to the children of Ontario about violence-free television, about educational television. That's really not what she's concerned about.

Je demande à la ministre, dans votre acte pour liquider tous les biens de la province, avez-vous oublié l'importance de TFO pour les francophones de la province --

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

M. Hampton : -- comme source d'information et enrichissement culturel ? Pouvez-vous assurer l'avenir de La Chaîne pour les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes ?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Again to the leader of the third party: I don't know how many ways I can say it. The fact is that the privatization framework has not been completed yet, and until such time as it is, no decisions will be made with respect to TVO, TFO or the privatization of any public assets.

Mr Hampton: It's obvious that the minister has nothing to say to the francophone population of Ontario either in terms of the importance of TFO, so let me try again.

We recognize that you want to work out the framework with your corporate friends before you sell off TVOntario and TFO. We understand that. We understand that the minister of privatization has to meet with the brokers on Bay Street and make sure they get their commissions and their fees when you sell it off. We understand all that stuff.

What I'm asking you is, as the minister responsible, do you not see a place in Ontario for commercial-free, violence-free educational television for children? Do you not see a place in Ontario for one of the best public television networks in North America?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I have some difficulty with the leader of the third party understanding what we're saying with respect to this issue. We clearly stated in the Common Sense Revolution and during the election last year that TVO is a potential candidate for privatization. That was something, by the way, we did take to the taxpayers of this province.

We are taking a very careful approach to the whole issue of privatization. TVO clearly has been identified as a potential candidate, but until such time as any decisions have been made with respect to privatization, TVO will remain as it is.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Health. Are you aware that Mrs Ella Galligan, a 102-year-old widow living in Pembroke, Ontario, has just been told by your officials that effective November 30, 1996, she will not only lose her OHIP coverage but her OHIP card because, in the view of the Ontario Ministry of Health, she is a refugee claimant?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm not aware of that case. I will take the question on notice and be happy to get back to the member with the appropriate answer.

Mr Conway: Minister, let me tell you a little bit about Mrs Ella Galligan of Pembroke, Ontario, who your department now thinks is a refugee claimant. She's a 102-year-old citizen of our community. She is the daughter of a former member of Parliament. She is the wife of our long-term county court judge. She is the mother of Mr Justice Patrick Galligan, recently retired from the Ontario Supreme Court. She is a lifetime resident of the Ottawa Valley, a distinguished citizen. Her family wants to know not only that you're going to fix this, but how it is possible that someone so distinguished ends up in the government computers of Mike Harris's Ontario as a refugee claimant.

Hon Mr Wilson: I would remind the honourable member that when the Liberal government sent out blank forms for people to get their health cards in 1986, parrots and dogs and cats and other family pets were issued health cards by that government. In fact, 12 million people were issued health cards for a population of 10 million. I have devoted most of my career to straightening out the health card system, and I'm doing that as we speak.

I will take the question on notice and get back to the honourable member with the specific case and correct any errors that may have occurred, but I certainly don't need any lectures about inappropriate databases from the Liberals.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question. The member for Nickel Belt.

Interjections.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I'm trying, Mr Speaker; I'm trying.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, come to order, please. The member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): My question is for the Minister of Finance in his role as chairman of the cabinet committee for privatization. We know that the two ministers who have been involved with the whole issue of Ontario Hydro have been making somewhat contradictory statements in the last few days.

On Monday, the Minister of Environment and Energy said that a decision on privatization was two to four years away and that indeed the decision was being put on the back burner. Yesterday, your minister for privatization, in response to a question from my colleague from Lake Nipigon, danced around the issue and wouldn't make any kind of commitment and simply wouldn't deny or confirm what the Minister of Energy and Environment had said.

This is not a trivial matter. There is a lot of anxiety and concern out there about the future of Ontario Hydro. I wonder if you could confirm now that indeed the Minister of Energy and Environment was correct that the whole issue of privatization of Hydro is not on.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): There are many issues around the privatization process which certainly are far from being resolved, and I can assure him that absolutely no decisions have been made with respect to privatization of any entity in the province of Ontario, let alone an entity with the importance of Ontario Hydro.

I will say to him that the government is reviewing the MacDonald report and that we have not responded to the same, as I'm sure he is aware. When the government has prepared a response to react to the MacDonald report, that will be forthcoming.

Mr Laughren: I think that's simply not fair. There's a number of people who are concerned and anxious about the future of Ontario Hydro out there. Our caucus has been holding a series of public forums across the province; we haven't completed them yet. Environics has done a poll which showed that 66% of the population of this province are opposed to privatization of Hydro and only 24% are in favour of it.

The MacDonald report we know has recommended that the most lucrative parts of Ontario Hydro be sold off, presumably to your friends in the private sector, while the public would be stuck with the more expensive ways of generating power in the province. I believe that the people in this province deserve a more definitive answer in terms of a time frame for what your intentions are re the privatization of Ontario Hydro. It's simply not fair to leave it hanging out there and people not knowing what the future of this very important asset is.

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

Mr Laughren: So could you, at the very least, give us a time frame, tell us that this is not on in the next three to four years?

Hon Mr Eves: We have made absolutely no decisions about any privatization candidate, let alone Ontario Hydro. I can say to --

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): When are you going to?

Hon Mr Eves: "When am I going to?" the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside puts it. We are currently trying to establish a process for privatization in the province of Ontario. We will look at various candidates as they come forward. Ontario Hydro has certainly not even been thought of or mentioned in any deliberations to this point in time, and I cannot see any such deliberations taking place in the near future.

I think the most important thing for the government to do at this particular moment in time with respect to Ontario Hydro is to review the MacDonald report and get back with a response to the people of Ontario. I quite agree with the member for Nickel Belt, Ontario Hydro is --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Eves: -- indeed a very important institution in this province and the generation of electricity in the province and power in the province is a matter that is of utmost importance to the government and we will certainly proceed in due course.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Next week is Small Business Week throughout Ontario. It's an important week that recognizes the value of hardworking, risk-taking small business people.

As a former small business person for the past 20 years, I realize the importance of the little guy in the big corporate world. Studies have shown small business creates 85% of all new jobs. Will the minister inform the House what the government is doing to encourage this valuable Ontario resource, small business people, to start, expand and grow their businesses?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Yes, I am very happy to respond to the member for Scarborough West. He is the Brown on the right side of the House.

I would like to start off by reading a quote, if I may, from Catherine Swift, who is the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Ms Swift says: "The current Ontario government is clearly more small-business-oriented than any of its predecessors. It has already begun to translate into more jobs for Ontarians as small firms remain the dominant job creators in the economy."

We have done much, as Ms Swift has said, but I'd like to just give a few points to back that up. First of all, we are providing government incentives to the banking industry to lend to small businesses. Secondly, we are cutting the employer health tax on small businesses, as we all know. We're committed to removing barriers that limit lending by loan and trust companies, we are reforming the Labour Relations Act and we have reduced the personal income tax rates.

Mr Jim Brown: From my experience, Minister, small business is a job generator. Small business growth is essential for Ontario's prosperity. What is the economic impact of these hardworking, dedicated small entrepreneurs? What percentage of the private sector does small business comprise?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Small businesses make up 43% of the private sector; 297,000 small businesses exist in Ontario and we have talked with almost 400 small businesses lately.

I'd like to give you some statistics from those calls: Twenty-three per cent of those calls were with companies founded by women. Fifty-five per cent are companies in the 30-to-44 age group. Those people have a lot of faith in what we are doing. Sixty-seven per cent of those people used their own savings and did not ask for any government grants. Forty-six per cent say they will bill $75,000 in their first year of operations. I'd like to conclude my answer by saying that there will be more detail provided next week by my parliamentary assistant, Mr Joe Spina, for Small Business Week.

WATER TESTING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is about small business in northwestern Ontario and it's to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Minister, because of your government's decision to close the Thunder Bay Ministry of Environment laboratory, trailer park owners in northwestern Ontario have been told that they must now pay for the cost of water testing. This will result in a cost of $10,000 annually to the trailer park owners, who are already finding it hard to make ends meet.

Minister, what assistance will you provide these trailer park owners, who tell me that if they are required to pay the $10,000 water testing costs, many of them will have no alternative but to go bankrupt?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): We are committed to a user pay program in the ministry with regard to water testing by people who are using the service. I will work, of course, with any individual case where this would be an undue financial burden. We would be glad to deal with those on an individual basis.

Mr Miclash: Minister, that's not what your ministry has told these trailer park owners in northwestern Ontario. You stated yesterday in question period that you were satisfied that you were dealing with the water testing situation in this province. Hundreds of people living in trailer parks throughout northwestern Ontario are not as satisfied as you seem to be.

I am talking about trailer park owners who just cannot make ends meet because of the extra $10,000, the fee for water testing services. These owners want to stay in business, but feel the policies that you and your government are putting forward are having a devastating effect on them.

Minister, one park owner has already gone bankrupt and many more are hurting and going in that direction. What concrete action will you take today to ensure that these trailer park owners will not have to go out of business because of your decision to close the Thunder Bay lab? More importantly, what comfort can you provide the hundreds of residents who are worried about the effect your decision to close the lab will have on them and, more importantly, on their drinking water?

Hon Mr Sterling: Through the Ministry of Housing we will be providing trailer park owners with a better opportunity to recapture some costs which are necessary to deal with their particular situation. I hope that would be some partial solution for these owners. However, we believe this is a cost of operation. We believe that people who are on municipal water pay for their municipal water and the testing associated with that. We believe that these businesses, along with some help through the Ministry of Housing in recapturing these costs, through the people who are benefiting from this particular service, should in fact bear that cost.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In the absence of the Premier, my question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He will know that last Thursday the Premier and a number of his cabinet colleagues came to Sault Ste Marie for a Progressive Conservative fund-raising dinner. Six weeks before that, the mayors and reeves of Algoma got very excited about this because they saw in it an opportunity for them to have a meeting with the Premier when he came. The man was coming; they were going to have their meeting. They have a lot of issues they need to discuss with this person and with some of his cabinet.

It turns out, though, at the end of the day they were told he was coming late and leaving early; it turns out he actually came early and left late. Nevertheless, the bottom line was that any mayor or councillor or reeve of Algoma who wanted to have time with the Premier when he came to Sault Ste Marie last Thursday --

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

Mr Martin: -- had to fork out, either personally or out of municipal dollars, $150 to go to a Progressive Conservative fund-raising dinner --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Martin: -- to talk to the Premier of this province. Is this to become the norm in Ontario that duly elected mayors and reeves and councillors have to --

The Speaker: The question's been put.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): To the member of the third party, I'd just like to remind him that members of this government and members of the cabinet, including the Premier, meet with municipal leaders right across the whole province and especially in northern Ontario. I've talked to Mayor Butland, I've met with most of the mayors right across northern Ontario and their input is welcome and accepted by this government. We're treating northern Ontario fairly.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): To the same minister, the fact is that the mayors around Sault Ste Marie, to meet with the Premier, had to pay $150 a plate to the Tory fund-raisers in Sault Ste Marie. That's how they got in. It was the only way. Now we know the Premier's coming to Timmins tomorrow, on Thursday. Is this what you plan on doing as well? Will the mayor of Timmins and other mayors around have to fork out 150 bucks to be able to meet with the Premier of the province? Will they?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The answer is no.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I'd like to put a question to the Minister of Transportation. There's been a great deal of concern in my riding over Highway 6, running through Hamilton-Wentworth down into the Caledonia area. Over the years there have been some fatalities there. There have been a number of serious accidents. It's caused some frustration and made some area residents quite upset. I would like to know if the minister could inform my constituents what plans are set for the area so that he can address their concerns.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to thank the member for Wentworth East for his question. Certainly I would like to assure my colleague that the ministry is working with the public and local agencies to address areas of concern in order to reduce accidents and improve operation of Highway 6. In fact, some time later this year ministry staff will be holding a public consultation session to work directly with everyone concerned about safety on this highway.

Our project management staff will bring --

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

Hon Mr Palladini: -- their design drawings and they will talk about what we are going to do with Highway 6. This will be an information-sharing session. Concerned citizens will also be able to express their views, so we have every intention of following through on that.

Mr Doyle: I would like to thank the minister for that, and I'm sure the Safe on 6 committee will be happy to hear that as well. The Safe on 6 committee of course was put together after citizens were fed up with the fatalities on that roadway. In conjunction with local and provincial police, schools and residents, they've been instrumental in bringing awareness to the drivers of the area. Minister, what specifically will your ministry be doing to alleviate the concerns of the residents and members of this committee?

Hon Mr Palladini: The Safe on 6 committee is an excellent example of how communities and government can work. This committee has been active at every political level and suggested cost-effective improvements on Highway 6. In fact pavement markings and speed-fine warning signs and enforcement signs have already been installed and upgraded. Public reaction to my ministry's efforts has been very, very positive. A detailed design assignment is under way for construction of additional improvements, and these will be discussed further at the next meeting we're going to be holding.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it requests some clarification of comments he made several days ago in the House. We were talking here about some expenditure cuts and the minister said -- I think I'm quoting him here accurately -- "There is absolutely no correlation between the tax cut and the expenditure cuts."

The Common Sense Revolution, though, said something quite different, as the minister will remember. The Common Sense Revolution is the Conservative campaign document, and it was very, very clear in that document that the tax cut was linked clearly to the expenditure cuts. The document says, "Balancing the budget is tied directly to every other measure in our plan," the other measures, the tax cut and the spending cuts.

Minister, what I think the people of Ontario would appreciate is confirmation from you that the document you ran on is the document the government believes in and that the tax cuts are very much tied directly to the expenditure cuts, as you said in your campaign document.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Perhaps the difference of opinion between our party and the member's party is that we actually believe on this side of the House that by reducing taxation levels in Ontario, be they payroll taxes or personal income taxes, we will actually create jobs in Ontario, which has been shown to be the case over the last year, some 99,000 more people working in the province this September than last September. I can say to the member, quite frankly we believe more people will be hired in the private sector, more jobs will be created by reducing the ever-growing burden of taxation upon hardworking, honest taxpayers and the people in the province.

Mr Phillips: I take that as a confirmation that there is a direct correlation between your tax cuts and your expenditure cuts. I will just say to the people of Ontario that you say the deficit is a big problem that must be tackled. We agree. But how you're tackling it we have a fundamental disagreement with.

You are cutting 20% of spending from hospitals in this province and closing dozens of hospitals. Virtually every classroom in this province has more students in it this year than it had a year ago. You have cut grants to municipalities by 50%, and where you are on your expenditure cuts is halfway through the cuts you say you're going to implement. This year you've announced half of your cuts and you've told us there are still as many cuts to come as you've already announced. I want you to explain to the people of Ontario --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): A question, please.

Mr Phillips: -- if the deficit is that important and if we have to have these massive cuts that you insist on, how can the province afford a $5-billion tax cut using all borrowed money --

The Speaker: Put the question.

Mr Phillips: -- that means that a person earning $150,000 a year gets a $5,000 tax break? How can we afford that if you've got to cut hospitals, school boards, municipalities?

Hon Mr Eves: The tax cut is not costing Ontario taxpayers $5 billion. That's point number one. Point number two, health care --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Lake Nipigon, come to order, please. Minister of Finance.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): He's out of control.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I'm not out of control.

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, come to order. I'm warning you to come to order.

Mr Pouliot: He's wrong or he's lying.

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, you've crossed the line. I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Pouliot: Out of respect for you and the minister, I will withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Eves: With respect to health care, the Minister of Health and the government have repeatedly said that we are reinvesting the money in health care, that we have protected the health care envelope. As a matter of fact, he knows that we are spending well in excess, $200 million to $300 million more, this year in health care than the envelope of $17.4 billion promised. Coming from the party whose leader promised $17 billion would be the health care envelope, that's pretty difficult to take.

Classroom sizes have not increased in the province of Ontario.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): They have so, Ernie.

Hon Mr Eves: We actually are going to devote more money to the classroom, I say to the member for Windsor-Riverside, as opposed to spending 47% of it outside the classroom. We don't think that's entirely appropriate. The reduction to municipalities -- I have just as many if not more than any other member of this Legislature in my constituency -- equals 2% of their total spending last year.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. We still haven't been able to get a straight answer from you with regard to the future of the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers. In addition, the leaked cabinet document which I made public last week confirms that it's your intent to disband the Occupational Disease Panel and fold it back into the WCB. You should be aware, of course, that this is now raising international outrage, given the respect that panel has had worldwide. In fact, the British magazine Hazards carried an

article that called the Ontario Occupational Disease Panel "an organization whose pronouncements on the recognition of work-related health problems are listened to and respected across the industrialized world." They go on to say, "The decision has baffled and dismayed occupational health specialists internationally who view the ODP as a model of excellence."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Put the question.

Mr Christopherson: For years the issue of disease discovery was left inside the WCB and it did nothing for uranium workers and miners across this province. Will you avoid the international disgrace you're bringing to this province and --

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Labour.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would just like to indicate to the member opposite that we are doing everything possible to ensure that we do strengthen the commitment to health and safety in this province. Yes, there will be changes taking place, but I can give you my assurance that at the end of the day, with the changes that we make to WCB, along with the changes that we've made in the way of health and safety prevention, there will be a much greater reduction in illness and injury than was ever seen under your government for five years.

Mr Christopherson: Quite the contrary, because if you're going to remove the expert panel that's received international acclaim for the work it's done, how can you possibly be taking positive steps to eliminate occupational disease when you're in the process of killing the panel that's out in the forefront of doing this? It's not just here in Ontario and it's not just in Britain, as I've just mentioned.

There's also a Dr Jeanne Beauchamp of the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee who said that she was "greatly disappointed to hear from my colleagues in Canada that the province of Ontario plans to eliminate the Occupational Disease Panel in the very near future." She also says, "It serves as a model for the international community on the way policy-making should be done." That's the opposite of what you're telling us.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Christopherson: Stand in your place today and tell Ontario workers that you're not going to do this to them and that you're going to keep this panel in place doing the job for workers that it has been doing for decades.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just indicate to the member opposite that I think all of your hallucinations, or whatever it is you're doing today, are quite premature. I would suggest that you wait until we introduce the amendments to the WCB reform.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I would like to take the opportunity to further respond to the question that was asked by the honourable member for Renfrew North with respect to the 102-year-old woman. I just want to assure the member --

Interjections.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): He doesn't want the answer.

Hon Mr Wilson: Well, he'll hear the answer. I'm sure he's just in the back. I have a right to do this, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's all perfectly in order. I understand the member for Renfrew North isn't here. You may have a supplementary and anyone may respond.

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm trying to do a public service here, to provide the answer in a timely manner.

The woman is 102 years old. She comes from a prestigious family, a historic family, and there's obviously been a mistake here. The mistake apparently is that the application was filled out in 1990, it wasn't signed and there were a number of boxes not checked off, so the ministry put the thing in limbo. I apologize on behalf of the ministry, because customer service should be higher. Someone should have called over the last six years and said, "By the way, this application's not complete." I assure all honourable members that we'll be getting a new application out, customer service will be made paramount in this situation and the woman in question will be reinstated into OHIP immediately.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I wrote to you in September requesting an answer to the planned destruction of child care centres and child care spaces in Toronto. You already know that Toronto is in the process of building four new schools because of increased enrolment: Eglinton, the Island Public School, Lord Dufferin Public School and Queen Victoria Public School. These schools all have present child care centres, but you refuse to fund them in these new schools.

Surely you know that by refusing to fund these centres, you are destroying 218 child care spaces, yet you keep on talking, quite hypocritically, about $600 million for child care spaces.

I'm not surprised that the people of Toronto are telling this minister she is speaking with a forked tongue. I would ask her to justify her remarks and to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Parkdale, come to order. That is so profoundly out of order. I say to the member for Parkdale to withdraw.

Mr Ruprecht: I will withdraw that comment, but let me ask this minister a very specific question.

The Speaker: No, you have asked the question. Order. Member for Parkdale, take your seat.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you very much for the question. We have many decisions to make in terms of how we are going to allocate the $600 million we have put aside for child care. What is happening on capital funding is certainly very much part of that discussion. There have been proposals put forward, and I look forward to continuing to provide the input before we make final decisions.

Mr Ruprecht: I've got a note right here. I'm looking at this note. In this note -- and you signed it -- you wrote, "My ministry will no longer provide funding for child care centres." You said: "You know where you can go? You can go to philanthropic associations, rich corporations, and get your money there." You said, "Why don't you ask the city of Toronto school board to get you the money?" She knows that the city of Toronto school board cannot provide the funding because it is not authorized by provincial legislation.

You've been less than fair. On the one hand you're talking about $600 million for child care spaces; on the other hand you're saying, "Go somewhere else." Which is it going to be? We want to know today, and thousands of parents in Toronto want to know today, where you stand. Are you going to use the $600 million you're talking about today for child care spaces and centres or are you going to sit on it and do nothing about it? When are you going to act?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much for the question, sir. If I were to act in terms of making final decisions before the consultation process was complete, the honourable member would quite rightly be the first to stand up and criticize me. We are following through with putting out proposals, hearing input from groups that are interested and concerned about this, and will be making final decisions. I appreciate the concern the honourable member has. There are always many more capital needs for child care or many other things that this government has funded in the past.

We are trying very much to protect funding for services to people, to protect funding for subsidies for low-income families so they can have access to supports.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 59(c), the standing committee on estimates be authorized to postpone consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health and proceed with consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is the motion carried? Carried.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Again I have received in a Purolator pack another pile of petitions signed with regard to the Health Services Restructuring Commission's report. The petition says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closure of two acute care hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas the overall number of available beds will be reduced by approximately 35%; and

"Whereas the reduction in beds will affect Sudbury's ability to remain the referral centre for health care in northeastern Ontario; and

"Whereas there will be a large number of layoffs in the health profession impacting the quality of local health care and our Sudbury economy; and

"Whereas the global annual budget for Sudbury health care will be reduced by approximately 25%;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close two of Sudbury's acute care hospitals."

I affix my signature to it as I am in full agreement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Can I ask the members, if you're going to meet -- I appreciate there are two lobbies on either side -- please go out there and meet. It's very difficult to hear the petitions. Thank you.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario is planning to destroy the present system of rent control;

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 or in the Common Sense Revolution;

"Whereas a number of Conservative candidates in ridings with high tenant populations campaigned during the 1995 election on a platform of protecting the current rent control system;

"Whereas the government has consulted with special interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5 million tenants in Ontario;

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province."

I agree with the petitioners and have affixed my signature to the petition.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I rise this afternoon to present a petition to install traffic lights at the corner of Myrtle Road and Highway 12 in my riding of Durham East.

"To the government of Ontario:

"Please be informed that we, the neighbours and travellers of the abovementioned area, are in full agreement that traffic lights should be installed, and we petition the Ontario government that this be done immediately, before further traffic accidents occur. Traffic is very heavy, and truck and auto speeds greatly exceed the speed limit at the best of times, but especially the early morning hours and commuting hours of 5 am to 7:30 am. Many workers commuting to the Toronto area use Myrtle Road, known as Concession 9. It is very hazardous attempting to cross Highway 12.

"If lights were installed, the traffic on Highway 12 would have to stop periodically, giving westbound traffic in the morning and eastbound traffic in the late afternoon a much better chance to cross this

section of road, hence creating a much safer condition.

"We therefore the petition the Ministry of Transportation to resolve this issue as soon as possible."

Thank you for your indulgence. I affix my name.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 2,269 signatories.

"Whereas Bill 26 has empowered the health minister to make sure the hospitals preserve their high standard in patient care;

"Whereas most of the hospitals are replacing experienced registered nurses with registered practical nurses and unregulated health care workers, not only on the wards, but also in acute care areas such as operating rooms, intensive care and haemodialysis units. It is those aforementioned areas where the seriously ill patient will benefit the most from the registered nurses' skills in observation, assessment and the initiation of necessary care intervention;

"Whereas most hospitals claim the necessity to cut costs are due to cuts in funding. Yet Mount Sinai Hospital has shown on record that staffing entirely with registered nurses not only provides exemplary patient care, but also proves to be cost-effective. This is because patients recover faster with less complications, therefore a better utilization of bed spaces. Apart from that, Mount Sinai saves on the cost of training and supervision of less qualified staff;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, beseech you, the Minister of Health, to stop hospitals from replacing registered nurses with registered practical nurses and unregulated health care workers. Stop the erosion of our health care before it is too late."

I commend this worthwhile petition to the Legislative Assembly.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition from people from the Sault Ste Marie and Algoma area, about 133 names all told, to do with the spring bear hunt.

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas over 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

I sign my name to this as well.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I present a petition to rescind Bill 181, the Ammunition Regulation Act:

"Whereas the NDP government, under former Premier Bob Rae, passed legislation, Bill 181, the Ammunition Regulation Act, placing restrictions on the sale of ammunition in Ontario; and

"Whereas the provisions contained in Bill 181 are time-consuming, onerous and create unnecessary red tape; and

"Whereas the records for which these provisions have been produced do not track criminals; and

"Whereas Bill 181 was passed in only one day without any discussion with law-abiding gun owners such as farmers, collectors, hunters and recreational shooters, who understand and have a deep respect for the power of firearms and ammunition and the need to maintain and use their equipment in the safest of conditions; and

"Whereas Bill 181 will do nothing to combat the use of illegal ammunition;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to repeal Bill 181, protect the rights of responsible firearms owners and work for tougher penalties against weapons offences."

I agree with this petition and therefore affix my signature to it.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition that's been forwarded to me by Susan Lundgren, who's been leading the charge in Thunder Bay for the welfare and protection of animals, and certainly we have a great deal of support, with over 500 signatures. I will read it for you.

"We, the undersigned, acknowledge the need and demand for amendments and repeals of the municipal, provincial and federal laws in relation to animal welfare and the OSPCA act. New legislation must be comprehensive, specific, all-inclusive and unerringly enforced according to standards that are conducive to appropriate animal welfare and proactive rights regulations."

I'm proud to sign my name to this.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions from the Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers' district office in Oakville, the Labourers' International Union of North America, OPSEU Local 353 and Local 354 out of Oshawa and PSAC out of Toronto. They regard this government's ongoing attack on health and safety and WCB in this province. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I affix my signature in support of this petition.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep getting petitions against the new jail that has been established in our community. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the PC government has opened a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations and hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are existing facilities that could be expanded to assess and treat the criminally insane; and

"Whereas no one was consulted, not the local residents, not the business community, not the leaders of community organizations, not education and child care providers and not even the local member of provincial Parliament;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the PC government of Ontario and the Minister of Health to immediately stop accommodating the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a full public consultation process has been completed."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I present a petition from some of my constituents and they say this:

"We, the undersigned, want you to know how we feel about your proposed health care cuts.

"Please do not misunderstand us, Mr Harris. We do not envy you your nice high income. If we had it we would be overwhelmed.

"Before you go ahead and make all your health care cuts, we would like to invite you to live as we do, below the national poverty line, for a period of five years. After five years, we would be interested to hear whether you still feel these cuts are of prime importance.

"Some of our concerns are:

"The chronic care units in our hospitals are deplorable. The nurses and staff are doing their best under difficult conditions. Mr Harris, a lot of these people, mostly seniors, helped build this country in their productive years. Now that they are sick and frail, they should be treated with respect and dignity. They should not be pushed aside and left to fend for themselves or to die.

"Specialized treatment: It is not always convenient or economical for a person to travel to another city for some treatments, when these treatments are or could be available here. We have to consider our financial positions as well.

"The renal dialysis unit is essential and should not be closed or cut back. To the patients depending on this unit, it is their lifeline. Transplants can take years to acquire. In the interim, dialysis is their only means to survival.

"Neonatal intensive care: We were shocked to hear that this unit was on the chopping block too. This service is vital to newborn babies who require 24-hour critical care treatment. Having had a grandchild that would possibly not have survived without this unit, I am appalled. When a baby is born that requires critical care, time is essential. There may not be time to transport this infant to another centre. With our northern winters, weather conditions come into the picture as well. We would hate to see an infant die because of poor weather.

"A few years ago, this community fought long and hard to upgrade this unit. Now, Mr Harris, you want to close it. Where is your head and your heart?

"Instead of all the cutbacks of essential services, have a look around. There are many other non-essential areas of concern that could be chopped. Please look. We hope you will consider some of your cuts. We would also like to thank you for taking the time to listen to this."

I sign my signature to this as well.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is a pleasure to rise today to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness;

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic;

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require `elective procedures' to be funded;

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion;

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the provinces exclusively to determine what services will be insured;

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is indeed hazardous to women's health;

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control;

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

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

"That the Ontario provincial government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial health insurance plan."

It's a pleasure to affix my name to this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

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

"Whereas since March of 1996, gasoline prices have increased on average a dramatic 10 cents a litre, which is over 45 cents a gallon;

"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods;

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and former consumer and commercial relations minister Norm Sterling, while in opposition, expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Gravelle from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 21st report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a statement?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): No thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Barrett from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr66,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr72,

An Act respecting the University of St Jerome's College.

The committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr67,

An Act respecting the Ontario Plumbing Inspectors Association Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 84,

An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you wish to make a brief statement, Minister?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The Fire Prevention and Protection Act, 1996, will allow municipalities to improve safety and reduce costs in the way they deliver fire protection and fire prevention. This bill consolidates a number of older statutes and will result in better fire protection and public fire safety education. Through this legislation, the government will ensure greater fire safety for Ontario communities.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IMPAIRED DRIVING), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUITE AVEC FACULTÉS AFFAIBLIES)

Mrs Marland moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Impaired Driving Offences / Projet de loi 85, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les infractions pour conduite avec facultés affaiblies.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried. Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This bill contains measures to reduce the incidence of repeat offences of impaired driving. The latest statistics from Ontario's drinking-driving countermeasures office show that of all drivers' licence suspensions issued for impaired driving, 65% were for a second or subsequent offence.

My bill requires persons convicted of impaired driving to take a prescribed education program and, if sentencing evidence deems it to be necessary, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program before their drivers' licence can be reinstated following a suspension. The convicted persons will be required to pay the cost of these education and rehabilitation programs themselves.

For many drivers such programs, combined with the existing one-year licence suspension for a first offence, will stop them from drinking and driving again. However, there are drivers for whom these are insufficient deterrents. This bill also contains measures aimed at those more resistant offenders.

The bill increases the length of the drivers' licence suspensions for repeat offences. On a second conviction of impaired driving the licence suspension will increase from two to three years; on a third conviction the suspension will increase from three to five years. Finally, for drunk drivers who are hard-core repeat offenders their drivers' licence will be permanently revoked following a fourth conviction of impaired driving. Based on legal advice, I have included a mechanism for appealing the revocation after at least five years have passed and the licence is revoked.

I look forward to debating this bill during private members' business on Thursday, October 24.

My final comment is to say that I appreciate very much the support of Mr John Bates, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who is in the members' gallery this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: In the future, I'd just like to advise the members that when you introduce a bill, you don't debate the bill. You just give a brief statement.

OPPOSITION DAY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs McLeod moved opposition day motion number 2:

Whereas Mike Harris promised Ontarians in the last election that there would be "no cuts to health care funding"; and

Whereas hospital funding has been slashed by $1.3 billion; and

Whereas the Big Blue Bulldozer, the so-called arm's-length Health Services Restructuring Commission, has begun to plough through communities across the province; and

Whereas this non-elected and unaccountable body wields dictatorial power over the fate of Ontarians' health care; and

Whereas all the work of the commission has been conducted in secret; and

Whereas this government's hospital restructuring has nothing to do with improving the quality of patient care in Ontario and everything to do with funding the Tories' 30% tax cut promise; and

Whereas decisions of the Health Services Restructuring Commission to date will result in Thunder Bay and Sudbury losing 50% and 37% of their acute care hospital beds respectively; and

Whereas the Common Sense Revolution promised that "local health care communities will share in any savings identified locally for reinvestment in community priorities"; and

Whereas of the $41 million cut from the operating budgets of Thunder Bay hospitals only $10 million has been committed to reinvestment, and of the $41 million cut from the operating budgets of Sudbury hospitals only $13 million has been committed for reinvestment; and

Whereas the Minister of Health has reduced the amount the government is required to fund for capital projects from two thirds of the capital required to one half; and

Whereas thousands of Ontarians in communities across the province, such as Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Kitchener, Wiarton and Kincardine, have pleaded with the minister to stop the destruction of health care in the province of Ontario and save their local hospitals; and

Whereas there is no regard for community input in the restructuring process; and

Whereas Jim Wilson has stated repeatedly that "bricks and mortar do not cure people, people cure people"; and

Whereas the $1.3-billion cut to hospital funding over three years will result in 15,000 nurses losing their jobs; and

Whereas this loss of health care providers translates into patients losing 13 million hours of nursing care; and

Whereas the actions of the Harris government will result in the erosion of quality and accessible health care in the province of Ontario; and

Whereas Ontarians are frightened and angry that because of the actions of the Harris Conservatives they will be unable to access quality health care in their own communities; and

Whereas the Minister of Health is clearly in control of this process despite his attempts to deny it;

Therefore, this House calls on the Mike Harris government to admit that the so-called arm's-length restructuring commission is a sham; to dismantle the unaccountable and dictatorial Health Services Restructuring Commission; to restore the $1.3 billion it has stripped from Ontario's hospitals; and to live up to the promise it made to voters in the last election that access to quality health care will be protected.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): You will appreciate the fact that it is going to be difficult to restrict the debate on this motion to the two hours we have remaining to us this afternoon.

There are a number of my caucus colleagues who are anxious to participate, so I'm going to attempt in leading off this debate to speak fairly briefly, although I am personally feeling so much frustration, so much concern and so much very real anger after the stripping of the hospital budgets and after what the hospital restructuring commission has done in my home community of Thunder Bay and in my colleague's community of Sudbury, and what the commission will do in communities across this province, that it is going to be difficult to curtail what I want to say this afternoon.

I know my colleagues are anxious to speak. I know they are anxious to speak because they are already seeing in their communities the impact of the cuts to the hospital budgets. They're seeing the layoff of nurses. My colleague from Hamilton mentioned the fact in the House the other day that 2,000 nurses were going to face layoffs in the Hamilton area. I know they're concerned about the loss of health care in their communities and I know they realize that the same restructuring commission which has already come to Thunder Bay and Sudbury is on its way to their communities.

They've seen what's happened in Thunder Bay and they've seen what's happened in Sudbury, and they are worried that the same thing is going to happen in their communities. They have reason to be worried, so they are anxious to speak to this issue today.

There is so much that has been happening in health care in this province in recent weeks and months that it's difficult to even touch on it in a single resolution, as lengthy as that resolution may have appeared to be.

The resolution we've presented today doesn't begin to touch on what is happening in the whole area of mental health, where there are changes in governance that have been proposed by the restructuring commission, directions that violate the ministry's own directions, that set aside any principle of independent governance for mental health, directions put in place by the commission that, in my view, threaten to put mental health so far on the back burner that all the needs in the area of mental health are just going to keep boiling over on to the streets of our communities with no one left clearly responsible for addressing them.

That's a concern, but it's a debate that will have to wait for another day.

The resolution we've presented today doesn't get into the issue of long-term care, care for our seniors, where the flat-line budget that the minister likes to brag about is proving totally, completely inadequate to meet the needs of a population that is aging in every way -- aging in the sense that our seniors are a growing percentage of our population, aging in the sense that our seniors are living longer and certainly aging in the sense that our seniors are encountering care needs that require more and not less care.

They need institutional care as an option, not instead of community-based care but as accessible, alternative, optional care for those for whom supportive care at home is just no longer an option. We are a long way from the days when half the people who were in our nursing homes did not need to be there. But that, again, is a debate for another day.

Today in our resolution we focus on two very much related issues. The first is the work of a commission that has been given the power to tell a community what health care it can have and what health care it cannot have. The second concern is the responsibility of a government that is taking millions of dollars out of health care in our communities to pay for a tax cut, a government that takes $1.3 billion out of the budgets of hospitals across this province and then tries to say, as the Minister of Health says repeatedly in this place: "We are not responsible for shutting down hospitals. It is an independent commission, an arm's-length commission that is making these kinds of decisions."

We begin this debate by making two things absolutely clear. The first is that it is the Conservative government of Mike Harris and Jim Wilson that set up the commission in law.

It is the government that appoints the commissioners, it is the government that provides staff to the commission, it is the government that receives advice from the commission and indeed, as we have seen, it is the government that provides advice to the commission -- advice, as we have seen in Thunder Bay, that supports the closure of our hospital beds and the closure of our hospitals; advice in Toronto that says we should close four more hospitals than the 11 the district health council had already recommended closing.

Make no doubt that this commission is not at arm's length from the government that sets it up, staffs it and advises it.

The second point is that it is this government, and this government alone, that sets the budgets for hospitals and for health care. It is this government that gives hospitals money. It is this government that takes the money away. The commission which has supposedly been given independent powers has only been given power to advise the minister when it comes to the funding.

It is the government that is directly and solely responsible for hospital budgets, it is the government that has set up this so-called independent commission to give it advice and it is the government that is ultimately responsible for the provision of health care in our communities. It cannot walk away from that responsibility, as much as Jim Wilson, the Minister of Health, would like to do just that.

I am actually not sure whether Jim Wilson, our Minister of Health, really thought he could avoid responsibility by setting up a commission and giving it powers that have never been given to a so-called independent, non-elected body before. I'm not sure if Jim Wilson realized how dictatorial the exercise of absolute power in the hands of a non-accountable body could be and would be. I'm not sure if he realized how quickly his commission, having been asked not only to do his dirty work but to do it as quickly as possible, would become a monster.

I'm not sure if he recognized that a commission with the power to dictate terms but no power at all to pay the costs of his restructuring could only be a rigid and unresponsive demolition squad for the Harris government, and that's what it has proven to be.

I think the Minister of Health was simply desperate. He was desperate to find the ways to cut the $1.3 billion from the hospital budget in time to meet the Minister of Finance's budget targets and in time for the Premier to deliver his tax cut. He was desperate, his government was desperate and his government is still desperate, so the commission has quickly become an out-of-control body marching into our communities, marching out again and leaving only destruction in its wake.

I can tell you, having been part of a community that has been visited by the commission, that the commission's work has absolutely nothing to do with a thoughtful and planned restructuring of health care, as much as the minister likes to talk about that. It is certainly not contributing to the creation of what many people like to describe as the ultimate goal of health care restructuring, and that is a seamless, integrated system.

Even the head of the commission talks about that as a vision, the commissioners talk about that, but with the commissioners, and indeed with the Minister of Health, that is nothing but jargon. It is convenient jargon to attempt to camouflage what they are actually doing in our communities today as we speak.

The commission can talk about vision, but it's some sort of dreamlike ideal, an ideal that somewhere down the road you would like to see happen, something that will be talked about in the future. It is not something the commission can deal with today, because the commission has been given only one mandate. The commission has not been given the mandate to create a seamless, integrated system or to put money back into communities. The commission has been given the mandate to destroy, to level the hospitals we have in place now, to strip away their budgets to meet the minister's $1.3-billion goal.

They have not been given the mandate to put money back into our communities. The commission has absolutely no power to do that. It's clear that the government is not prepared to do it and it has given the commission those marching orders. All you have to do is look at the