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

May 1, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L184 - Thu 1 May 1997 / Jeu 1er Mai 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH CARE

FINGERPRINTS AND PHOTO-IMAGES

HEALTH CARE

FINGERPRINTS AND PHOTO-IMAGES

HEALTH CARE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SILENT VIGIL

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

PORT COLBORNE GENERAL HOSPITAL

SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY

MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

SCARBOROUGH FIREFIGHTERS

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RED RIVER FLOODING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

HIGHWAY FINANCING

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

OMAFRA/UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ASSAULT

FIREARMS CONTROL

PORT COLBORNE GENERAL HOSPITAL

NON-INSTRUCTION SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

PORT COLBORNE GENERAL HOSPITAL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PORT COLBORNE GENERAL HOSPITAL

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

FIRE SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

UNIFORM FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'HARMONISATION DES LIGNES DIRECTRICES FÉDÉRALES ET PROVINCIALES SUR LES ALIMENTS POUR LES ENFANTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I move private member's notice of motion number 52:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should produce a concrete plan for the development of better health care in this province. Such a plan must:

Ensure a high standard of health services are available to all Ontarians;

Include appropriate policies to reflect regional and demographic needs, including small and rural communities, northern communities, large urban communities, medium-sized urban communities, high-growth communities, women's health, francophone health issues, seniors' health;

Recognize that local communities must be allowed to determine their particular needs;

Link improvements in primary care, community health, home care, long-term care, mental health, drug benefits, public health and emergency services such as ambulance to decisions concerning hospitals and other elements in an integrated health plan;

Identify and ensure equivalent community-based services are set up and funded in advance of any changes to hospital services;

Include a human resources plan which reflects the high value Ontarians place on their nurses, doctors and other health professionals;

Guarantee any tally of government reinvestment includes money which has actually been spent rather than simply announced, so as not to confuse the public.

Further, that until this plan is produced, subject to public input and approved by a committee of this House, the Ontario government should:

Restore cuts made to hospitals which are causing a reduction in the quality of patient care across the province;

Stop the experimental use of formulas for patient care which are sending sick Ontarians out of hospital quicker and sicker;

Stop its misguided closure of hospitals in the province through the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Pursuant to standing order 96, the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Kennedy: I have brought forward this resolution in the spirit of recognizing one of the key responsibilities of this Legislature when it comes to provision of public services in this province, and that is, no matter which party sits in government, no matter what measures it deems are necessary for the wellbeing of the public, it is important not only to provide those services but to sustain public confidence that those services will exist currently in a way that is important to the people who are affected, and into the future.

What we have seen in recent months is that the public has been stricken with a real sense of crisis around their health care system.

The public has seen what used to be a system that was predictable and reliable at the times of urgency, of sickness, of illness for themselves and their family members, turned into one racked by crisis: by the crisis of a hospital closing that is important to them; the crisis of cutbacks which affect the very basic care that they receive, which sends esteemed health professionals like nurses, and now even doctors, into previously unknown unemployment, and disconnects people on whom we have not only spent money but invested a substantial amount of trust to carry out important duties in our community away from those duties.

That public confidence is extremely fragile at the present moment. We have had surveys by various polling groups, but we don't need those surveys. We have talked to people in our constituencies. We know that the level of care being offered by the system has been diminished in recent months. It would be easy to pinpoint the various contributing factors to that. We could talk largely around political choices between tax cuts and cash flow for that tax cut from the system, but I think if we want to find some resolution from this House that addresses the public confidence, then we have to look for those areas in which we could agree.

Hopefully, one area where we could agree is the need for a plan. The public has a right to expect from this government and from this House as a whole some regard for that concern that they're feeling, to see that there is a plan which pulls together what the state is of one of the most important public services that touches their lives, and to see that ahead of time. What we have seen in recent years are cuts to hospitals across the board, in effect arbitrary cuts in every community in the province.

So 210 public hospitals have had to decide in 210 different ways how to cope with historic cuts to their services, cuts which have ranged between 11% and 14% or 15% of their grants from the province. This has caused all manner of strange adaptations.

In Brampton it means they now have the lowest number of hours -- it's no longer in days -- that women stay in hospital after giving birth. In that hospital they're proud of having achieved that kind of accomplishment, but when you ask the very simple question: "Are the mothers happy? Are they satisfied? Does this work?" the answer is no. The response is a sad shrug, saying, "What else can we do?"

Similar things are found all across this province. Of course we stand here today not looking for an arbitrary plan. We're not looking for something on paper that simply sits there as a potential to cover up and paper over cracks which have now emerged in the system. What we're looking for is the kind of plan that is going to bring some assurance, for example, to the family of Ed Whitehill, who in Peterborough ended his life in circumstances that none of us should have to face. Ed Whitehill, at the age of 82, saw a hospital for the first time in 40 years, spent an overnight in the emergency ward.

The family was told to go home, that there was no room for him, and 20 to 30 stretchers in the hallway were testament to that. Those people on those stretchers heard the next day, of course unfortunately a well-known statement, the daughter saying, "How long has my father been lying here dead?" That lack of rooms meant that Ed Whitehill died in the ignominy of the bright lights of an emergency room hallway. That family wants this province to not let that happen again.

So does the family of Leie Rykene. Leie Rykene spent five days waiting in York region for a hospital bed, a cardiac bed, to be able to get an angiogram -- five days waiting -- to the tremendous upset of all those who were caring for her: her family, the physicians, the specialists. The system did not respond. It didn't respond because we've enacted arbitrary cuts ahead of time. We are looking at hospital restructuring, but we're doing that in isolation; we're not doing that as part of an overall plan on how to make the system better.

If there's any commitment that this House needs to make clear today, it's that whatever changes are made and whatever disagreements we might have about that, we're going to stand up to make this system better by some objective standard.

In this province we don't have the checks and balances against making huge mistakes. We have a system that looks after the behaviour of doctors. We have none to assure standards in either our community care services or in what's existing in hospitals. So we know there's been some recognition already on the part of the government that there are holes in their approach. Like any government, they have the opportunity to admit those mistakes and to rectify them. So they have said of late that small and rural communities will have a policy that's appropriate for small and rural communities.

If that's so -- and we applaud the idea that this sensitivity might exist in the government benches, particularly in the Ministry of Health -- then why don't we have the same sensitivity for northern communities, which have seen themselves devastated in terms of what's happened to hospital services in Sudbury and Thunder Bay, with cuts of 25% and 35% of the services available there?

Why not for large urban communities? If we pause long enough, not for a great deal of time but long enough, to look at what's happening, for example, for Women's College and for Wellesley, for Doctors Hospital, even for Northwestern, we would look at the impact of community hospitals, which have already paved the way of how we can do health care in the future, reaching out to some of the poorest people in the province, in the instance of Wellesley, involving them in their health services, already starting them down the road of preventive health. That can't be recreated once it's gone.

In terms of women's health, we have an arm's-length list of firsts and advantages for women which have been gained from having a locus of practical, hands-on activity taking place under one roof. Those things would be readily apparent if we had a standard for women's health.

If we looked at the needs as well, for senior's health, we would recognize that the plans so far, such as they are in this province, take us only to 2001, and yet it's 2005 and 2010 when we're going to see a huge growth in demand for seniors.

We would recognize some of the area needs, for example the number of seniors served by Branson Hospital, who have nowhere to go. They literally have no place in the community that they can go in terms of Metropolitan Toronto.

We would recognize places like the Grace in Ottawa, and Riverside. The Grace was the cheapest way of delivering birth services anywhere in the province, yet it's being shut down; Riverside, with some of the greatest efficiencies, and yet being shut down; and in other areas, the Hotel Dieu in St Catharines, with some of the greatest efficiencies in the Niagara region, also being threatened with the idea of being shut down; and all for the lack of a plan, all for the lack of a government willing to take the time to really preserve health care.

So part of what we look at today -- and we are particularly mindful of the Montfort. When we look at the Montfort Hospital, we recognize that we no longer have any soul in terms of our health care plan, any connection between the real needs of people when we think we can antiseptically remove from the francophone community what they've fought for for 20 and 30 and 40 years: a place to train, a place to achieve medical excellence, a place to get services in times of emergency, a place for francophones to belong in this province, and proof of it. If that can't be accommodated by a health care system, then we really have no plan at all.

If we're not prepared to give assurances ahead of time that community-based services will be there, funded and in place when anything is removed from hospitals, then we don't mean it. And if we don't mean it, if we're not serious about making sure the human resources plans are there so that -- our doctors are leaving now in greater numbers, even though they haven't been hard done by in some respects by this government, but there was a one-year war this government had with those doctors before reaching a deal with them that may cost the province a lot of money. But it's not the money. It's the feeling, because there's no human resources plan, that this province doesn't want them.

It comes down to whether this House wants to preserve public health care, because if we're not going to preserve the confidence in that system, if we're not going to have regard for the people who've seen tragedies because of the mistakes we've made so far, then what we really mean is we're headed for an American-style system, through the back door, by taking away people's belief in the system.

Members of this House, we can't allow that to happen. You have an opportunity today to make sure it does not.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to congratulate my friend from York South for bringing forward this resolution for debate in this House this morning. I want to speak just briefly about the two first items on his list, appropriate policy to reflect the regional demographic needs of small and rural communities and northern communities.

I want to congratulate the government and the minister for bringing in legislation yesterday for nurse practitioners, the recognition of their right to practice in this province, because that's of particular importance to small, rural communities and to northern communities. It is one way of trying to deal with the doctor shortage as well as ensuring that we provide good quality, economic services to people in small communities right across the province of Ontario.

I am concerned, though, that this government is not prepared to move beyond that to properly serve small communities. I'm going to talk specifically about two communities in my riding, Richards Landing on St Joseph Island and Thessalon on the North Shore.

Both of these communities have small hospitals. Richards Landing has the Matthews Memorial Hospital, based on a foundation established by a summer resident of that community many years ago and the community has worked very hard to maintain that hospital and to provide services, to raise funds for that hospital for many, many years.

This government, the Minister of Health, approved an operating plan for the Sault area hospitals for 1996-97 which approved the closure of the in-patient beds at Matthews Memorial Hospital in Richards Landing and most of the in-patient beds at Thessalon Hospital in Thessalon. There are provisions for moving Thessalon Hospital to another location if funding was available, and funding has not yet been made available.

The government said they were going to guarantee 24-hour emergency services in both of these locations, but with only one nurse on duty per shift. Everyone in the community understands that this is not adequate. It is not going to be possible to provide emergency services in the case of a traumatic accident, an automobile accident or a heart attack, in this kind of circumstance.

I want to emphasize that Thessalon is a community that has an industrial base. There are two sawmills and a veneer mill located in that community, and we all know, unfortunately, that very serious industrial accidents can occur in those kinds of operations, and they have occurred.

Thessalon is an hour's drive on Highway 17 from Sault Ste Marie. If we have a serious automobile accident, heart attack or industrial accident, in the wintertime particularly, it will be impossible for a resident of that area to reach hospital in time in the Sault. It's just impossible.

Both Thessalon and Richards Landing are retirement communities. People made decisions, life decisions, on the basis that there were hospitals available. Elderly people sold their homes in Sault Ste Marie, or in some cases in parts of the United States, and moved to St Joseph Island and to the North Shore because they were assured there were hospitals located locally. If they had a heart condition, they knew they were within five minutes by ambulance of a hospital with emergency care. We have no assurance of that now under the 1996-97 operating plan for the Sault area hospitals that was approved by this minister.

In response to pressure in southern Ontario, in the Bruce Peninsula and elsewhere, the minister said he was going to set up a policy review for access to quality hospital care for residents of small rural communities, and I welcome that. But what's happened with it? It seems to have gone into a black hole in the ministry. We haven't heard anything about it.

On top of that, when the decision was made to bring forward this kind of review and to assure rural residents of access to quality care, the minister made no commitment that it would also affect Richards Landing and Thessalon. I wrote to him and said: "If this applies to small rural communities in southern Ontario, will it also apply in the north? Specifically, can you assure us it will be applied at Matthews Memorial Hospital in Richards Landing and in Thessalon at Thessalon Hospital?"

The minister wrote back and said, "We've already approved the operating plan for the Sault area hospitals, which includes the closure of inpatient beds in those communities." This gives no assurance to the people of those communities. It's completely inadequate. I asked the minister to put a hold on the closure of those inpatient beds until the new policy was established and could be applied in Thessalon and Richards Landing, as it is apparently going to be applied in rural communities right across Ontario.

I call on the government now not to abandon the elderly, the residents, all the people of St Joseph Island and the North Shore, and respond to their needs. Assure them that they will have access to quality health care, quality hospital care, at the Thessalon Hospital, and the Matthews Memorial Hospital in Richards Landing.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to express my very strong opposition to this resolution that I think would be harmful to health care in Ontario, not only this year, not only in what's going on across Ontario and across Canada this year, but in preparing for the future. I oppose this resolution because it has no plan to deal with the future of health care in Niagara and expresses no leadership.

What the government is doing is preparing for the future of health care in Ontario, to express some leadership as to how to deal with the new miracles of medicine, the new surgeries, the new procedures, that get people out of the hospital quicker and in better shape. Procedures that took weeks or months before, now can be done in a day.

How do we prepare for the aging senior population that will require more health care in the future and this bubble of baby-boomers entering into their fifties? How do we prepare the health care system to adjust to those needs, to prepare for that 21st century of health care? I would contend that it would be a negligent lack of political will not to make changes, not to proceed and to make our health care system better, to put money into priority areas, into community care to adjust for these seniors, to take advantage of the medical miracles.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): And long-term care.

Mr Hudak: Long-term care, as my friend from Durham East says, is another good example.

The previous governments employed a method that was basically across-the-board cuts without any planning, without any coordination of where these cuts should come from, which resulted in bed closures in almost every hospital across Ontario, but left in its place the same administration, the same $100,000 salaried administrator, the same kingdoms.

But where were the cuts? The cuts were in the front-line care, in services to patients, and left an inability to adapt to the medical advances to prepare our way for the 21st century. That was no plan and in fact showed a distinct lack of political will.

What I would say this resolution is asking us to today is to go back to square one, go back to the old NDP and Liberal methods, to not coordinate this -- the mess they would have had health care in if they were on this side of the House. Instead, we have a plan. Mr Kennedy's resolution names a number of things that he wants to see, which the government is doing.

It's a transition. Transitions are always difficult in a number of areas, pulling into the 21st century, but necessary. I think Margaret Thatcher once said that if you have no direction, it's easy to go whichever way the winds are blowing. We certainly see this here. A transition is difficult to move into the future, but they want to take advantage, to exploit this and move us back to square one instead of advancing us and taking advantage of things that are out there.

The plan is already under way: reinvestments in priority areas in Niagara, like the Rehabilitation Foundation for the Disabled, $535,000 in Niagara to help physically disabled adults; $98,000 for the Alzheimer Society in the Niagara region, to adjust to those needs, those priority areas; Anagram, an excellent institution in Niagara to provide long-term living activities and supervision for adults with brain injuries.

Also, rural health care in Niagara region, where I am from -- a very difficult transition period -- rural health care to attend to those needs in the small communities: The government understands and believes that small communities are different, that the small community hospitals play an important role, and in developing rural health care policy we will adapt to those needs to ensure that access to emergency services -- a priority in Port Colborne, a priority in Fort Erie and a priority in Grimsby -- is met.

I oppose this resolution very strongly because it would take us back to square one. This government has a plan, an excellent plan, to bring Ontario's health care system into the 21st century. If we accept this resolution, we would do no better than previous governments that would not make the tough decisions to modernize our health care system. We are prepared to make the tough decisions to move into the 21st century, with sensitivity to the small communities and priority areas, but we will make the tough decisions to provide better health care for young people, for seniors, for women, for everyone across Ontario.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to my colleague's resolution this morning. I think it describes the elements of a deep and widespread concern that many people have about these issues. As health care is evolving, the health care system must change as well, but the changes that are brought about must also be allowed to evolve at a natural pace, to guarantee that no one's interests are trampled in a drive to impose change for its own sake.

As a result of the government's agenda, the Health Services Restructuring Commission is poised to wreak havoc on communities and the services on which they have come to depend. The release of the commission's report in Ottawa-Carleton raised the red flag in this regard for the francophone community. Their experience can be taken as a lesson and an example to all communities which are defending their own hospitals in their own communities.

The commission's report makes it glaringly obvious that its fact-finding was extremely circumscribed and limited. It missed entirely a crucial segment of the whole picture of the life of this province, a reflection of the problem with top-down management, where what you get is the illusion of control and the reality of chaos.

It is so disturbing to me that with the stroke of a pen the government can destroy what has taken years to build, like the Montfort. Other hospitals have grown up in their own communities over many, many years and become integral parts of their unique cultures. Surveys have shown that people are extremely attached to what they consider "their" hospitals, and for good reason. Like the Montfort, which has survived and flourished for 44 years, these institutions have developed through the vision, effort, courage, determination, and financial and volunteer contributions of their communities.

These are not just bricks and mortar. They represent the work of individuals who have come together to build a community resource that is a source of pride and a symbol of continuity. To take that away is to do real damage to foundations we have built upon.

Our health care system is a highly prized part of our national identity, something we are extremely proud of. But health care is not just a concept; it is a reality. That reality can be secured in the quality of our institutions. These institutions are not negotiable; they are where we work, come together and grow as a people. They bind us together. Dismantle these institutions and you profoundly affect the nature of our society.

For a culture like that of Franco-Ontarians, which is our historic minority, the effect is much more profound. If you take away our institutions, you take away our culture, our history, our hope and aspirations, and drive them underground.

If we would only trust that communities are naturally driven to finding creative solutions to their problems, we could return government to its proper role: supporting the decisions of those who live with their circumstances every day, who instinctively know the answer to the question of what should be done. Communities know. Make them full partners in the process of change. They are our best chance to make sure everyone wins throughout this ongoing process of change.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I also appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak on this important issue. I also, with my colleague from Algoma who spoke before me, want to go on the record in thanking the member for York South for bringing this timely issue before the House so that we could all address it in some meaningful way, because I don't think there's one of us who serves here on behalf of our constituents who isn't in some way concerned about the implications to our communities flowing out of the very negative impact of the cuts to health care imposed by the government of the day.

I would suggest that even the members of the government, if they were being honest and representing the view of their constituents, would be standing up today and saying the very same thing we are.

Lest it be thought that this is simply a political exercise, a chance for us in opposition to get up and do our opposition thing in being critical of the government, I today want to share with the House and with those listening some thoughts from some of the people out there who also share the same concern. I have some letters with me from some constituents that I want to read into the record so that you know what it is that the people in my community are saying. I carry their message to this House and I try to present it as sincerely and as honestly as I can.

I also want to quote, or put into the record, some comment from the report that was made to the standing committee on finance in the pre-budget consultation by the Ontario Hospital Association, a group that I think came before us with some great courage in being critical at this particular point in time of the government and the direction it's taking and the way it's going about the restructuring of health care in our province.

This is from the OHA: "The government's current policy towards the restructuring of hospitals and the health system as a whole is seriously flawed and must be fundamentally changed before irreparable damage is done." I suggest to you that in some instances irreparable damage has already been done and it's going to take a tremendous effort by everybody involved to recover from that damage in some communities. "Unless changes are made, the people of this province will face reduced access to care and the quality of that care may decline significantly. This must not be allowed to happen."

When the OHA came before the committee, I was representing the New Democratic Party there. I asked them why they weren't willing to go the extra step and actually accuse the government of having done irreparable damage and accuse the government of having already reduced access to care and quality of care in the province, because we know, those of us who are in direct contact with people who have had to access hospitals or health care in our communities, that in fact is what has happened.

They said they felt the presentation they were making was already somewhat over the top and a break from the tradition of the OHA as it came before standing committees of the government and it wanted to have all of its partners on board when it made this statement. In making this statement, they were confident and comfortable that it represented the view of all the people in their organization representing hospitals across this province.

They also went on to say:

"A group of experts on hospital funding have carefully modelled and analysed the impact of the further cuts that are proposed for 1998-99. They have concluded that, even with aggressive utilization management, savings from clinical efficiency and significant organizational consolidation, the hospital industry will not be able to achieve the $1.3 billion within the three-year time frame without affecting access to, and quality of, health care services."

They are very critical of what's already been done and they're suggesting that if it continues the damage will be further and more serious and will negatively impact the already reduced ability of people to access and quality of care.

I have a couple of letters here that were written to the Minister of Health from constituents in my community that I think other people should be aware of, and perhaps themselves take up the task and put pen to paper and write the minister as well. Here's one that was written to the Minister of Health and the Premier.

"I am writing this letter to plead to you, our Minister of Health and Premier of Ontario, to help solve the problems with our health care system.

"We must push for better health care. Our hospitals are deplorable, not through the fault of our hardworking nurses, doctors, staff etc, but through the gross, stubborn negligence of the Ontario government. As for Jim Wilson and Mike Harris, how can you even think of having the term `Honourable' in front of your name, when no honest, true efforts are being made to protect this service?

"I have watched Parliament on local TV and have also personally attended. In my opinion Mr Wilson has no concept as to what the health care system is all about. His stumbling and bypass comments are not worth listening to. You have heard how some people hold their jobs because of their mouth muscle only. Well, in my opinion Mr Wilson should be ousted immediately, as he serves no earthly good as Minister of Health. He is truly bluffing his way, which is quite evident watching him.

"I, as well as all senior citizens, am becoming very, very upset with the system and if something is not done soon only God knows what will happen. Because of your `prominent title' I am sure your family will not suffer as much as the `ordinary citizen.'

"Election time is not far away, and I for one can hardly wait."

This is signed by Zita Moynan from Sault Ste Marie, a constituent of mine.

Just one further letter before I wrap up here this morning, because I think it's important that people get a sense, get a flavour of what people are feeling and saying out there. This is to myself about the health care system and it goes like this:

"I am on a letter writing campaign to protest the severe cuts to our health care system in the north.

"I have written to the Premier and Mr Wilson with specific complaints.

"We cannot afford less care; we need more.

"Closing hospitals, cutting services, laying off nurses, training kitchen staff to do nurse work does not mean an improved health care system, in my view. I am a retired RN.

"The present government campaigned on a policy of not destroying our health care or education system.

"Do what you can to make them keep these promises."

This is signed by a Mrs Bertolo out of my community.

I really don't have to say a whole lot more. I will certainly be supporting this resolution when it comes time to vote.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I wish to address this resolution because the government of Ontario is creating a concrete plan for better health care, one that puts the patient first, puts people first. This is a new vision that takes us into the 21st century and beyond.

It will be an integrated system, as proposed in this resolution. This vision is one in which all professionals, doctors, nurses, nurse-practitioners, technicians, pharmacists, rehabilitation and long-care services will work together to provide services for all.

Our vision for Ontario's health care system of the future is one in which patients are provided with the right care, at the right time, at the right place, a health system that will be there for everyone in Ontario when they need it.

In my riding of Norfolk, people are talking about the future of health care, and I wish to offer quotes from an in-depth series written by journalist Margaret Land in our local Simcoe Reformer.

Dr John Thorpe, chief of staff in Norfolk General Hospital: "I have faith the restructuring committee is going to do the right thing. Further, the restructuring exercise will show people don't need to be as dependent on hospitals as they currently are."

Dr Gerry Rowland, president of the OMA, is also from my riding, a constituent: "The current state of Ontario's health care system is the end result of 10 years of decline," and we all know who was in power during those 10 years.

Mr Paul Mailloux, chief administrative officer of both the West Haldimand General Hospital in Hagersville and Haldimand War Memorial Hospital in Dunnville, is also quoted in our daily newspaper. Yes, they did combine administration of these two relatively small hospitals. Mr Mailloux says: "The region's hospitals have been downsizing and restructuring for years. Downsizing actually came about due to advances in medical technology," technology which includes laser techniques and laparoscopic surgery, to name just two.

Ms Cathy Chisholm is director of our local VON services and is quoted in the Simcoe Reformer: "We can't afford to see hospital spending increase the way it did about four years ago. Community care is less expensive and it is every bit as good, if not better, as care in a hospital. People get better quicker at home. Unfortunately, people get very attached to bricks and mortar, but bricks and mortar do not heal people."

These are some of the things that experts are saying in my riding.

A further point: Mr Harold Schantz, administrator of Norfolk General Hospital, says, "Budget reductions started during the days of the social contract under the New Democratic Party." I see there are no NDP members in the Legislature at this point. I might add that there were no reinvestments during that time; that was a straight cut to health care.

Currently, Ontario spends more dollars per person on health care than almost any other place in the world. However, people have told me that their health care dollars aren't being spent as wisely as they could be.

All this has been compounded over the past two years as the federal Liberal government has cut $2 billion in health care transfers to Ontario. Since taking office, the Liberal government in Ottawa has cut health care and education transfers by 40% -- $6 billion cut so far nationally, but government program spending by only 2%.

Bob Huard, our seniors' representative from Norview Lodge, has said, "People are scared." There's no need to be scared, but with resolutions like this one and with the way the opposition parties are playing politics with this issue, I wouldn't expect anything else. The opposition parties are trying to cover their tracks. They can cover the visual sign all they like, but we can see the bad management that went on in the 10 years previous to this government. They can't cover that.

The vision and the changes we are implementing include the creation of some 4,000 new jobs at the community-health-care level, new jobs and opportunities for nurses as announced yesterday, for example, nurse-practitioners and others in the health care system. This is our vision for Ontario's health system for the future, and together we can make this vision a reality.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I wanted to take the opportunity, first of all, obviously, to offer my support for the resolution, but also to address some of the comments that were made by the government members, because I have participated in a reconfiguration plan; I have been part of a very difficult process in our community, where we tried to show leadership, where we tried to reinvest, where we tried to get into a new era in health care.

I was amused by the statement, obviously the new government slogan, "The right care, the right time, the right place," when they forget the last: "the right price." That's what's driving this government.

The member for Niagara South spoke eloquently about the future of health care and has a shared vision that none of us can disagree with, but let me tell you, the actions of the government betray the rhetoric. He spoke of leadership. There's been no leadership. I say to the people in Thunder Bay and to the people in Ottawa and the people in Toronto and every community where the restructuring commission goes: They are not reinvesting.

They have not kept their word to Windsor. In Windsor, we made a tough choice: We closed two hospitals in exchange for reinvestments in a range of community-based services and new health care services, and one of the first acts of this government was to throw out the recommendations and not act on them.

Yes, the rhetoric about reinvesting in the new health care is good. But I say to the members of the government: Don't buy in to everything you hear from the Ministry of Health. I say that no woman in hospital who gives birth to a baby should be released in less that 24 hours. That's crazy. If you think there's not a problem in our hospitals today, just go to an emergency room, be it in Windsor or Niagara or Toronto.

These are difficult questions. If you take the time to participate in the discussions around reconfiguration and new services, you will find that the leading experts in the world differ on what appropriate bed levels are, what appropriate care is. The decisions become very, very qualitative and very subjective.

I submit to you, when you go back to your communities, understand that the decisions to close hospitals being made today will have a long and lasting impact. When you talk to the experts, they will tell you, be very careful and leave yourself flexibility, because we can't accurately project future needs.

I finally would like to say that if you're true to your word about reinvesting, throw away the rhetoric and start doing more than talking about it. Don't close hospitals before you open those new services, because you've done that in Windsor.

To the people in Thunder Bay and Ottawa and London and Toronto, don't believe them. They have not fulfilled their commitment in our community. They're going to close your hospitals. You'll be left with less service and you'll be left holding the bag with a health care system that can't meet your very basic needs.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): In the time left for me, I want to make a couple of comments. I hear the Minister of Health and the Premier talk about increasing health care spending next year to $18 billion, talking as though that's a huge increase in health care spending.

When you consider the demographics of this province, not only is the population growing, but you have more older people. If you add into that the increased cost of the high technology of health care today, you have a situation in which, if you were to keep the health care budget at a frozen level, you would be in effect decreasing spending on health care by, I would think, as much as 10% a year. The Minister of Health and the Premier seem to forget that.

That's why many of us support the restructuring of the health care system. In my own community the Health Services Restructuring Commission is reducing the number of hospitals from three to one. I, personally, do not have a problem with that as long as the money that's saved in closing those two hospitals and going to one -- you're not talking about one year's saving but over the years -- as long as those savings are put into community-based care, long-term care, reinvested in the local community from which the savings come.

If that's done, then a lot of us would be quite happy to see the health care system restructured in a civilized way so that we can get on with providing good health care to the people of this province.

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): Health care is a serious issue for all residents in Ontario. Many of us are familiar with a heart or a cancer patient who must await treatment and patients requiring non-institutional and institutional long-term care. Meanwhile, as a result of the actions, and in some cases lack of action, on the part of the members opposite, we have hospitals with empty rooms which are not available for patient care but for which we continue to pay the cost of upkeep, heating and, in some cases, staff costs.

In fact, previous governments closed about 25% of acute care hospital beds without taking any steps to restructure hospitals. The need to reallocate funds currently tied up in administration, bureaucracy, duplication and waste is immediate and should be apparent to all of us. As you know, it was the Peterson Liberal government that began discussing such a plan, but it was also the Peterson Liberals who failed to act on that plan.

As we have stated from the beginning, Ontarians must have access to the highest-quality care in the right place at the right time. That has always been and will continue to be the goal of this government. We also recognize that some regional and demographic differences must be considered in making restructuring decisions. We know that appropriate care, access and economic considerations are of primary importance.

This government continues to address the needs of northern, rural and underserviced areas through such initiatives as the underserviced area program, the $70-an-hour fee for physicians in northern and rural communities and the pending rural health care policy.

It is also the responsibility of individual communities, in partnership with the local district health councils, to work together proactively to prepare a model for the Health Care Restructuring Commission's consideration. As I have stated before in this House, in order to have a prosperous future we must not only accept change but take a leadership role in implementing it. Locally created solutions are the best option for our communities.

I have worked diligently and extensively with the South Bruce-Grey Health Restructuring Alliance. As a team, we will continue to work within the framework of the process available to us to ensure that the excellent health care provided by our exceptional health care professionals in Bruce and Grey continues. We are also addressing the need for integrated service delivery and are working towards providing this as a part of our plan for the restructured health care in our community. My suggestion to all of you is to build your own solutions. Don't wait and hope that someone else will do it for you.

At the same time, the alliance and the people of Bruce and Grey recognize that the health care funds must be reallocated to those services that everybody needs. Obviously the members opposite do not understand. Additional new resources do not exist to allow us to stop finding savings in our hospitals before integrating services and implementing the reinvestment strategies that we all need. These changes must be undertaken concurrently and that is what this government is doing.

Community care access centres are an important aspect of health care restructuring and, as of today, there are 26 CCACs up and running in Ontario. CCACs will improve access to all long-term-care services, provide better coordination and assessment and ensure that clients have appropriate care. In addition, CCACs will purchase the highest-quality service at the best price.

We have also made an outstanding number of reinvestments in our health care service to date in cancer care, neurotrauma, cardiac care, dialysis and kidney transplants, mental health, long-term care, diabetes care, MRIs and breast cancer screening. These are just a few of the areas that this government has reinvested millions of dollars in.

In conclusion, what concerns me most about this resolution and others like it is that the motivation behind it is merely political and only serves to emphasize that the member for York South and his colleagues are not interested in participating in a process that was initiated by a Liberal government in the first place.

We cannot and will not stop the health care restructuring process in Ontario. It is a difficult and challenging undertaking which explains why previous governments were too weak to see it through. This government has the fortitude and the vision and we know that it is the right thing to do for all Ontarians. That is why I will not be supporting this motion today.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am especially pleased to follow the last speaker from the government party on this very important motion that we have before us today. I will be supporting it, as will be the Liberal caucus.

We recognize and have since the beginning what was just proved to us by the member for Bruce. The one thing she said that was absolutely true was that we do not have the resources to reinvest while not cutting existing services. That, friends, is exactly the point. This government has found the resources to give their instalments of the tax cut.

I am guessing we are going to have more of a tax cut announced in the following budget. At the same time, as you --

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Hear, hear. Hope so.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs Pupatello: -- not having the resources for health services, which you clearly admit to --

Mr Guzzo: David Peterson provided it. Why don't you like David Peterson?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau will come to order, please.

Mrs Pupatello: -- you do have the resources to give up various tax cuts.

Where do you think the money is coming from? As I travelled along Lesperance Road last Saturday afternoon with Gary McNamara, the Liberal candidate in Windsor-Riverside, he clearly heard at door after door after door from seniors concerned about having to pay for drug costs. Where are our health services? Let me quote the member for Bruce: "We don't have the resources to ensure health services because we have to cut health services from everywhere else in order to give you any, maybe some time in the future." That is exactly what the member has admitted to today and that is exactly what we disagree with.

I suggest that all those people in Windsor-Riverside told us on Saturday that we expect our taxes to be used for good health services. That is what the people of Ontario say.

When that woman in Newmarket met Mr Charest yesterday, she looked at him square in the eye and said, "After Mulroney and after Harris, me being a good Tory, I'll never vote Tory again." That woman in Newmarket said that because health services are failing in Ontario, thanks to the Mike Harris government. Why? Because they are admitting that there are no resources for health services --

Mr Guzzo: How about Chrétien's cuts? He's giving them back now.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, come to order.

Mrs Pupatello: -- that they also admit that they're prepared to borrow money to give the tax cut. I think that's just a terrible thing.

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat for a second. The member for Ottawa-Rideau, please come to order. Sorry, go ahead.

Mrs Pupatello: I had an interesting question that was put to us. Gary McNamara was quite surprised to hear it put in this way. An elderly person said to him, "How many months in a year?" Well, he said, "There are 12 months in a year, of course," and they said, "Will someone tell Mike Harris there are 12 months in the year and, if there are 12 months in the year, why have the seniors now been asked to pay again three months short of the time that their annual fee for that drug coverage was charged?" Why three months early have they been asked to pay again?

So may I tell you that as soon as you find a PC candidate in Windsor-Riverside, make sure that PC candidate has the answer to how many months in the year, because I'm telling you, they feel as though they have been ripped off for three months of coverage. It's bad enough that you instituted user fees to seniors. Why, when Mike Harris came to just the curb of the airport during the last campaign, didn't he say, "We're going to charge user fees to the seniors in Windsor-Essex county"? He should have said so and he should have said so in the rest of the province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's quite obvious that the health care policy of the Harris government is dictated by the 20-something whiz kids from the Fraser Institute who worship at the idol of a tax cut for the rich and forget about those who require government services by means of hospital care.

Members of the Conservative caucus cannot extol the virtues of the Common Sense Revolution here in this House and then go back home to their ridings and tell people they're going to save their hospitals, because the Common Sense Revolution and its tax cut really dictate that there are going to be hospital closings.

We all remember, however, that Mike Harris, during the last provincial election campaign, said, "Certainly I can guarantee you it's not my plan to close hospitals." Indeed that's what Dr David Foot, author of Boom, Bust and Echo, said in his advice to the Premier for the Niagara region, "Don't close hospitals," because in the Niagara Peninsula we have the largest per capita group of people over the age of 55, meaning we're going to require hospital care in great numbers.

I can recall no Progressive Conservative candidate, including my friend Tim Hudak, who mentioned the closing of hospitals or gave any inclination there would be the closing of hospitals under a Harris administration, yet that's exactly what we're seeing across the province.

I will be standing up in this House and elsewhere to maintain Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby, Port Colborne hospital, Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital; not some trumped-up treatment centre with bells and whistles on it that they try to disguise as an emergency centre, but rather full hospital care which the people of all those communities deserve.

I implore the government to forget the rest of the income tax cut, which is going to benefit the richest people in our society the most, and instead to invest that money in our hospitals and our health care system in Ontario. I think you'd find a broad consensus for doing so and I would be among the first to applaud the government for initiating that particular action.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe there are 27 seconds left.

Mr Hudak: Speaking for this side of the House, this side of the House stands resolute to walk into the 21st century with a stronger system of health care, and while we're walking down that path, to take care of the sensitivities of the small communities, and access, especially to emergency care, in Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Grimsby and these communities.

We stand resolute for a better health care system. We believe in funding priority areas like kidney dialysis, MRI, breast cancer screening, and this resolution will take the money --

The Deputy Speaker: Time has expired. The member for York South, you have two minutes.

Mr Kennedy: I want to first of all thank my colleagues in the Liberal caucus and members of the New Democratic Party for speaking to this resolution.

We heard instead unfortunately from the government members -- we appreciate their presence here, but what we in Ontario have learned today is that a certain amount of brainwashing has taken place on the other side of the House.

What we heard were slogans. We heard, "Right place, right time, right price." What we didn't hear was, "Care for sick people in this province." We didn't hear recognition that there are problems this government has initiated: in Port Colborne where they're shutting hospitals; in Ottawa where they're shutting some of the most efficient hospitals going, with no explanation to the local community.

The only mechanism to examine this so-called plan is to talk to the same people, the same unelected commission that makes the decisions. It doesn't, as the members opposite have said, give us the future; it gives us the past. It gives us a past where people paid for their own care, where people died in their own homes, because now they're being kicked out of hospitals quicker and sicker.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Kennedy: It's being done nicely --

Mr Guzzo: Who closed it?

Mr Kennedy: -- it's being done with professors and it's being done with academics, but it's not being done --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. Member for Ottawa-Rideau, this is the last time. If you don't want to behave, I'll have to name you. Member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: It is not being done with care, and that's what we're asking of the members of this House today: to bring back to this system a plan that puts care back into health care. Instead, we got slogans and rhetoric, no understanding of people like Mr Tymchyshyn who had to wait five hours in the emergency ward, and left and collapsed and has been in hospital for weeks since; of other people who have been waiting, like Bryan Broome, 12 to 15 months for joint surgery because it's not sexy, it doesn't have a photo op for the Premier to come up and announce money.

The Premier has taken $600 million out of the health system he hasn't put back. He can announce as much as he wants; he's not spending the money and people know that.

I say to members opposite, if you don't vote for this motion, we'll regret that. Your constituents will regret it, but the people of Ontario will be worse off because you have let their confidence erode for no good reason.

FINGERPRINTS AND PHOTO-IMAGES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to rise today with respect to my private member's resolution, notice of motion number 48:

Whereas the province of Ontario's justice system is founded on the principles of fairness and equality; and

Whereas police have the right to take fingerprints and photo-images of persons accused of crime; and

Whereas there may be inconsistencies of policy among Ontario police services, where some will destroy an innocent person's information upon request while others wish to retain it; and

Whereas there is no legal requirement that a police service destroy the photo-image and fingerprints when a charge against a person is withdrawn or dismissed; and

Whereas the province of Ontario has an obligation to be fair to its citizens and does not intend to keep the fingerprints and photo-images of all Ontarians on file;

Therefore, in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should ensure that the rights of innocent persons are protected by establishing guidelines for fair and consistent policies throughout the province for police services, regarding the fingerprints and photo-images of innocent persons.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tascona: With respect to the resolution, the first paragraph deals with Ontario's justice system being founded on the principles of fairness and equality. I'd like to refer the members in the House to

section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which involves life, liberty and security of the person and which reads: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

The police have the right to take fingerprints and photo-images of persons accused of crime. We're dealing with adult persons. The Identification of Criminals Act, which is a federal statute, gives the police service -- and we're dealing with municipal police services -- the authority to obtain fingerprints and photo-images when a person is charged with a criminal offence.

The taking of the fingerprints and photo-images of the accused adult person, as authorized under the Identification of Criminals Act, does not violate

section 7 of the charter. That's a fundamental point. What we have here is a right to take the fingerprints and photo-images of the person who has been charged.

This resolution deals with once the person has been charged and has been acquitted or the charges withdrawn; we want to deal with the destruction of the photo-images and the fingerprints. What's important to know is that there are inconsistencies of policy among the Ontario police services.

In my riding of Simcoe Centre, there are two police services. You have the South Simcoe Police Services Board and the Barrie Police Services Board. Both of them have a policy to destroy the records, the fingerprints or photo-images, when the individual who has been accused has the charges withdrawn or the person is acquitted. That's not the same with respect to other police services across the province.

What's fundamental when you deal with the Identification of Criminals Act is that the act is silent with respect to the destruction of photo-images and fingerprints when a charge against a person is withdrawn or they are acquitted. Since it's silent, what we must deal with is the development of policies, because the provinces are given, under the Constitution, the administration of justice.

We have the Ontario Provincial Police, who have developed a policy with respect to the destruction of photo-images and fingerprints when an individual has the charges withdrawn or is acquitted. I'd like to state that policy of the Ontario Provincial Police, which is that the fingerprints and photo-images of adult persons would be destroyed upon request if the charge is withdrawn, stayed or dismissed. The person has the option of witnessing that destruction, in fact.

Because the Identification of Criminals Act, which is a federal statute, is silent, the Ontario Provincial Police have developed a policy with respect to the destruction of the photo-images and the fingerprints in the situations I've been discussing.

What I'm dealing with here are the municipal police services, and with respect to one part of the resolution, "Whereas the province of Ontario has an obligation to be fair to its citizens and does not intend to keep the fingerprints and photo-images of all Ontarians on file," it begs the question of whether, if that is done without a specific procedure or guideline, that would be in violation of

section 7 of the charter. There is a need to address this issue with respect to establishing guidelines across the province.

When you look at the Young Offenders Act in comparison to how we deal with adult persons in the criminal forum, the Young Offenders Act specifically has the procedure, and this is a federal statute, to deal with the destruction of records. I quote from that act.

Section 45(1)(

a) states, "Where the young person to whom the record relates is charged with the offence to which the record relates and is acquitted otherwise than by reason of a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on the expiration of two months after the expiration of the time allowed for taking of an appeal or, where an appeal is taken, on the expiration of three months after all proceedings in respect to the appeal have been completed."

Section 45(1)(

b) states, "Where the charge against the young person is dismissed for any reason other than acquittal or withdrawn, on the expiration of one year after the dismissal or the withdrawal."

So under the Young Offenders Act we have a specific procedure to deal with the destruction of records,

whereas under the Identification of Criminals Act we do not.

We have a void, and that's what we're looking at here today in terms of police services at the municipal end. The Ontario Provincial Police have developed a policy for adults. What we're looking for is the municipal police services to develop guidelines consistent across the province to deal with such matters.

The goal of this resolution is to protect the rights of innocent persons who, having been charged with a criminal offence, have the charge dismissed or withdrawn. The resolution calls on the province to establish guidelines for municipal police services to follow with respect to maintaining fingerprints and photo-images, records that are on file, because of what's happened under the Identification of Criminals Act.

Currently, because the Identification of Criminals Act is silent with respect to the destruction of records, we have a discretion on the part of municipal police services to determine how long they will keep an innocent person's fingerprints or photographs on file. This has caused inconsistencies across the province, as I have stated. In my riding, there is an automatic destruction of the records when the charges are withdrawn or that person is acquitted.

The need for consistent guidelines is made even more obvious when you look at the Young Offenders Act, where they have specifically addressed this within the legislation,

whereas the Identification of Criminals Act is silent on that. It has resulted in the province having to develop policies throughout their municipal police services, and also with respect to the Ontario Provincial Police, with respect to the destruction of records.

Also, there are parts of my riding where the police service is provided by the Ontario Provincial Police. To be fair, there is a consistent policy with respect to the Ontario Provincial Police, but not with respect to the municipal police services throughout the province.

Looking at the system, since it's supposed to be based on fairness and equality before the law, which is enshrined in the charter,

section 7, I believe we owe it to our citizens to ensure the rights of innocent persons are protected. That's what's contained within the spirit of the resolution and in fact the exact words used in the resolution.

What we in the Legislature have in front of us today is a resolution that I believe addresses a concern not only with respect to developing consistency across the police services within this province, but also addresses the rights that are enshrined under

section 7 of the charter to ensure, as the charter states, that the life, liberty and security of the person are protected.

Certainly the police have the right to identify the person who is being charged and the methods they use are photo images and fingerprints etc. But when you go to the reverse side, once that is taken and the individual is proven innocent through acquittal or the charges are withdrawn, the charter has to come in place also, and I think it has to be observed with respect to ensuring the life and liberty of the person. That's what we're dealing with here, to make sure that the guidelines that exist across the province, which are different for each police service across the province, are addressed and made consistent.

That is the thrust of the resolution. I believe it's not only proactive, it's consistent with our charter. I think it's consistent with the principles we stand for in this province. I thank you and I hope other members support this. I look forward to the debate on this issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me just say how glad I am to be here today to listen to the discourse that this member gave. Once again, I know that in this place every now and then we lose faith in the political process and we lose faith, maybe, in some of the actions the government has taken. But here's a backbencher of the government who has made a statement -- he could have made it in a minute and a half but he took 10 minutes to do it -- that actually made complete and total sense. I haven't said that too often in this House but I totally concur with him on this issue. It raises a number of interesting questions, though.

The first question I always have when we're debating these kinds of issues during private members' time, especially when they're raised by a government member, is: Why is this here? I assume the eminent member is a prominent member within his caucus. He surely could have raised this matter with the Solicitor General, who is in charge of all the police departments in the province or at least is the overseer of them. This matter could have been dealt with internally by the government or it could have been dealt with a lot more quickly. Why is this here?

I realize that maybe he didn't get anywhere with the Solicitor General or the Attorney General. Taking some of the actions these departments have taken lately over the last two years, I can well understand that. I would suggest to him that he would probably get a lot further if it was not only a motion of the House but if he also got some direct input and direct say with the Solicitor General into this issue. I think we'd get a lot further if he would get the endorsement of it so that the Solicitor General could pass this around to the various police departments throughout the province and get them to accept these kinds of guidelines.

The other thing I find rather unusual is for this kind of motion to be brought forward by one who is a member of, I think everyone would agree, an ultra-right-wing government, almost a Reform government in this province. This is not usually the type of issue that right-wingers are interested in, the whole notion of civil liberties and civil rights and that somebody's rights may actually be affected by police action etc. It's a very refreshing change to actually see that happen.

The third point I'd like to make deals with this whole notion of fairness. I believe that about four or five times during his 10-minute speech he talks about, "The province of Ontario has an obligation to be fair to its citizens." I can tell you that we in this party certainly agree totally with that. I don't think this government has been fair in how it has dealt with the most vulnerable in our society, whether we're talking about welfare cuts, whether we're talking about the tremendous disarray that the family support plan is in, whether we're talking about the lack of funding for adult education.

We had a demonstration here in the House yesterday by people who want to change their ways of life by getting further education so they can get the jobs that are out there, and that's being denied to them currently because of the lack of funding in continuing education. I don't think that's fair, and there's a lack of fairness with respect to the non-funding of junior kindergarten programs, and you could just go on and on, or a lack of any kind of local input in the hospitals that currently are being closed throughout this province.

So when we're talking about fairness to citizens, it is certainly very important --

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: He talks about fairness, that the Ontario government has an obligation to be fair to its citizens. I'm saying that all the other actions this government has taken over the last two years certainly indicates, to my way of thinking and to a great number of people in this province, that they have not been fair.

Having said that, I will support the member's motion. I would suggest to him that in the future, rather than bringing these things here, other than for the publicity value, and I think there's a value to that, maybe if he spoke directly to the Solicitor General or the Attorney General, they could deal with these kinds of matters in a much more deliberate and more efficient and quicker fashion.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I want to commend the member for Simcoe Centre and the member for Kingston and The Islands for being able to speak three minutes on this resolution. When you read the resolution, and I think the member for Simcoe Centre was stretching it a bit when he was explaining it, what it says is in the "therefore," the implementation part of the resolution. It says that "the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should ensure that the rights of innocent persons are protected by establishing guidelines for fair and consistent policies throughout the province for police services, regarding fingerprints and photo images of innocent persons."

It doesn't say they should be destroyed if charges are dropped or they are acquitted. It doesn't say that in the "therefore," so I don't know what this resolution means.

In the "whereases" there are some concerns expressed, but when it comes down to the "therefore," all it's asking for is guidelines. Don't you want to change the legislation? And if you do, that's not a guideline. I don't understand why it's worded this way.

I must say that --

Mr Bob Wood (London South): It's a federal law.

Mr Laughren: Well, call for a change in the federal law. If it's a federal law that needs to be changed, call for that, but you're talking here about the province "establishing guidelines for fair and consistent policies." While it may sound fine for the member for Simcoe Centre to be calling for fair guidelines on policies on fingerprints and photo images, he's a member of a government that has completely botched, for example, the way in which we should be treating young offenders, completely botched the killing of a native at Ipperwash, completely botched that issue.

Then to come into this House and pretend that you have concerns as a government for innocent people, we find it a bit hard to take. I, for one, am not going to spend any more time on this resolution.

Mr Bob Wood: I will attempt to be very brief as well. The position of the Ministry of the Solicitor General is that we're not going to take a position on this resolution because we want to hear the views of all members of this House and the views of the general public. We are confident that we will receive many good ideas from everyone.

I'd like to offer a couple of brief observations and I will then invite input. I would like to point out to the House that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement and records (managers) network, LEARN, developed a guideline within its document, Guidelines with Respect to Pardons Conditional or Absolute Discharges and Withdrawals/Dismissals. So some work has been done in this area and members may wish to take a look at that document.

The Ontario Provincial Police policy states that "the fingerprints and photo-images of persons be destroyed upon request if the charge is withdrawn, stayed or dismissed." The person has the option of witnessing the destruction.

All members may not entirely follow the legal position. The identification is done pursuant to federal law. What is done with the records is a matter of provincial policy. What the member for Simcoe Centre is inviting the government to do is adopt a province-wide policy.

We've invited comment and I'd like to suggest a couple of issues that those interested may wish to address. If we are going to have a general policy, should there be exceptions to it? For example, if the police have data from a suspected serial sexual offender, should that be an exception to the general policy? If there are going to be exceptions, what control should there be over the exceptions?

Basically we are looking forward to the opinions of members of the House and the public. We know there are going to be good suggestions and we appreciate the input. Thank you.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I am very pleased to be able to rise in my place today, I think for the first time in a long time, to support a private member's resolution from a government backbencher. This is an incredible shift from the tenor of most of these private member resolutions we get that are sort of like, "Let's hang the kids if they're bad," and things like this that we dealt with a few months ago. I said some nasty remarks about that bill. This is very refreshing, to see something that actually respects people's civil liberties.

We have a criminal justice system, and like all mechanisms of humankind, none of them is perfect. We make mistakes from time to time and people get caught up in these systems. I think we must remember the incredible intrusive powers that we confer upon our police and our jailers on behalf of society to take care of the criminal justice system. Once somebody is either acquittal or the charge is dropped, then absolutely all the evidence gathered towards pursuing a conviction against that person should be destroyed. I think there should be no question about that.

To answer the parliamentary assistant's question about whether there should be any exceptions: No, there should be no exceptions at all. Regardless of whatever crime you were suspected of having committed, if you've been found innocent, you've been found innocent. It doesn't matter what the crime was, whether it was shoplifting or murder, if you were found innocent of the crime, therefore you're back to being a regular citizen with entitlements to all the freedoms that our government and organizations confer on people. So there should be no exemptions at all; those documents should be destroyed.

I'm just here to say this morning that I support this resolution.

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I thank my colleague from Simcoe Centre for allowing me to address his resolution this morning on establishing guidelines for fair and consistent policies across this province in an effort to stave off the "Big Brother is watching" fears. The people of this province need to know the law enforcement process dealing with fingerprints and photos; legal advisers need to know the process; officers on the job need to know the process; our courts need to know the process. The difficult issue with respect to handling of this very personal information is there is not a clear right or wrong answer.

Obviously police agencies need to assist in preparing guidelines to establish a uniform province-wide procedure and policy in the collecting, recording and storing of fingerprints and photos. Records of information must be kept, whether in print form, on film or by electronic means. Photo-images, which are photographs, negatives or digital computer images, must be stored and protected. These records must also be readily available to investigating officers when needed.

Often it is these records that assist a police investigation to apprehend a suspect and it is these same records that assist a crown attorney in dealing with charges against a suspect in court. The confusion enters into the situation when various police service boards have various policies.

This becomes evident when speaking with OPP officers on the job. In contacting OPP officers, the first officer I spoke with said that she understood that if a record needed to be destroyed, for whatever reason, her experience had been that the complainant's lawyer wrote a letter asking for the records to be destroyed. If acceptable, the OPP then replied to the request in writing, inviting the complainant to witness the destruction of their fingerprints and photos.

The second officer contacted was a duty sergeant, and he was a former officer with the city police department. His understanding of the process was from the perspective of the former police service mandate he had worked under before being absorbed by the OPP.

The third officer contacted explained all photos and fingerprints were sent to the RCMP, since this national police agency has the data bank. This officer explained that if the complainant wanted their records destroyed, they would have to contact the RCMP.

Three different officers, three different opinions on the process. It is for this reason the member for Simcoe Centre has put this resolution before us today.

I recognize that there are various reasons a police record should not be destroyed, even following what we think is the closing of a case. Despite what those reasons may be, a person found not guilty by the courts should be able to ask for their records to be destroyed. There should be a procedure in place clearly understood by all parties involved. The outcome of the procedure could be varied, depending on the circumstances.

There is a need for a clearly defined procedure process which recognizes possible needs to retain certain records for future investigations or court cases. A clearly defined procedure process could also protect the integrity of a police investigation.

For example, the Law Enforcement and Records Network produced a set of guidelines for pardons and conditional or absolute discharges. These kits are available through the clemency and pardons division of the National Parole Board. The pardons kits contain an application form and relevant information for distribution to the public. A similar kit could be made available to innocent persons. The rights of those individuals could then be protected through establishing guidelines for fair and consistent policies throughout Ontario.

I feel we need to develop the legal requirement to destroy the photo images and fingerprints of persons where a charge against that person has been withdrawn or dismissed. We as legislators have an obligation to be fair to our provincial citizens. Keeping fingerprints and photo images of innocent persons is totally unnecessary.

This resolution provides police services with provincial standards, giving individuals respect and peace of mind. I will be supporting this resolution today because I believe it will assist our police officers at each step of a police investigation, and it will give the courts a basis to safeguard evidence. Most of all, I support this resolution because I believe it will protect the rights of individuals in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): This resolution brought forward by the member for Simcoe Centre calls for the province to establish guidelines for the police services to follow a consistent process in maintaining and dealing with fingerprints and photographs in the records of people whose charges against them are either withdrawn or dismissed.

There is an obvious need for consistency in the system. Currently, the decision to keep or destroy an innocent person's personal information is made by each police services board or by each police station, resulting in an unfair and unequal treatment of innocent people in Ontario. The member for Simcoe Centre referred to a possible violation of

section 7 of the charter, which protects the rights of individuals, and those rights can only be interfered with in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I'd also like to call your attention, Mr Speaker, and the attention of the members to

section 11 of the Charter of Rights, which reads as follows: "Any person charged with an offence has the right...to be presumed innocent until proven guilty."

That charter right gives innocent people the right to be treated equally to other people in the province, and one of the rights of people in Ontario and in Canada is to not have their photographs and fingerprints available in the police stations unless they are either charged with a criminal offence or have been convicted of a criminal offence.

I support the arguments of the member for Simcoe Centre. As a member who practised criminal law for 20 years, I would like to point out that people charged with an offence have no choice but to submit to the process of the Criminal Identification Act, by either

section 502 of the Criminal Code or

section 510 of the Criminal Code: Whether a person is charged and required to appear through a summons or an appearance notice, or a promise to appear, that person must attend for the purpose of identification, for fingerprinting and photographs, and if he is ordered to attend and fails to attend, he will be charged with a criminal offence and a warrant will be issued for his arrest. It's a very serious process that people have to endure.

The motion before us is that if that person is found not guilty or the charge is withdrawn, those records of photographs and fingerprints should be processed in a manner that complies with the Charter of Rights, in a manner that is consistent across the province.

The dangers of not having a procedure for either destroying such records or proceeding in a consistent manner in dealing with such records are great, in the sense that we have no idea of what happens to those records when the charge is withdrawn or the charge is dismissed. Some police services boards may have a policy that the records are kept, others may have a process that the records will be destroyed only if the person makes a request, and yet others may destroy such records.

The dangers in a criminal process -- and I have encountered such dangers in my practice -- is that such records can be used for a photo lineup. A photo lineup is a procedure where a composite, usually of eight to 12 pictures of individuals, is used to have witnesses identify a possible offender. What if a police station takes some of these photographs from individuals whose charges have been withdrawn or dismissed and use them in the collage that makes up a photo lineup for witnesses to choose a possible offender? The danger is that an innocent person may be fingered, may be accused of a crime he didn't commit, just by mistake.

Others will say that the danger is not that great, that the courts will ensure that the identification process is a fair one, but I can tell you, from my practice, it has been established that such dangers are great. Lots of people are convicted on wrong identification. I recall a case, the Beck case, around the turn of the century in England -- and that case has been studied by lawyers -- where someone who was innocent was found guilty on a misidentification. There were so many cases in the 1970s in England that resulted in the miscarriage of justice that a commission was put together. Lord Devlin led a commission to deal with the identification process.

Those are the dangers that arise from such a process, when the police office may have those pictures and they may somehow end up in a photo lineup and innocent people may be found guilty.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Tascona: I'd like to thank the members who are in support of this resolution, in particular the members for London South, Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and Mississauga East, for speaking on this.

Certainly there seems to be a general, broad-based support for this resolution. Obviously, the government of the day is interested in protecting innocent persons and ensuring that their rights are protected.

I'd just like to reply to the member for Kingston and The Islands, who seems to suggest that the members from the government don't really have a role in private members' business. Obviously, this is what private members' business is: bringing matters to the attention of other parties and all the members of the Legislature to ensure that things are not only known but action suggested. Action is being suggested with respect to municipal services across the province to develop consistent guidelines.

We're dealing here with a federal statute, the criminal identification act, which this government obviously doesn't have the direct power to change, but we are responsible for the administration of justice throughout the province. That's something we should take seriously, that this government does take seriously: protecting the civil liberties and the rights of innocent persons.

The member for Nickel Belt didn't take a position on this particular resolution; I don't know whether he supports it or is against it. But I can honestly say that the NDP doesn't have a monopoly on compassion. The concern that has been demonstrated by this government for fairness and equality throughout the province with respect to its citizens I believe should be respected; our record certainly demonstrates that we have done that.

In closing, I'd like to say that this resolution speaks for itself, and I look for support of the House.

The Deputy Speaker:

Section 96(

f) of the standing orders says, "When the time allotted for the consideration of private members' public business has expired or at 12:00 noon, whichever is later, the Speaker shall put the question to the House." Therefore, I have to wait until 12 and will suspend the debate until then. The bells will be rung at 5 to 12, and then the question will be asked.

The House recessed from 1143 to 1201.

HEALTH CARE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Will the members please take their seats. We will deal first with ballot item number 73, standing in the name of Mr Kennedy. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise? Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. No? Do you want to deal with it now? Afterwards? We'll deal with it afterwards.

FINGERPRINTS AND PHOTO-IMAGES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 74, standing in the name of Mr Tascona. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

We will now vote on the first ballot item. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

HEALTH CARE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Kennedy has moved private member's notice of motion number 52. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Bradley, James J.

Gerretsen, John

McLeod, Lyn

Brown, Michael A.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Patten, Richard

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kennedy, Gerard

Phillips, Gerry

Colle, Mike

Kwinter, Monte

Pupatello, Sandra

Cordiano, Joseph

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ruprecht, Tony

Curling, Alvin

Laughren, Floyd

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Barrett, Toby

Grimmett, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Beaubien, Marcel

Guzzo, Garry J.

Pettit, Trevor

Brown, Jim

Hastings, John

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Chudleigh, Ted

Hudak, Tim

Sheehan, Frank

Danford, Harry

Johns, Helen

Skarica, Toni

DeFaria, Carl

Jordan, W. Leo

Smith, Bruce

Doyle, Ed

Klees, Frank

Tascona, Joseph N.

Elliott, Brenda

Leadston, Gary L.

Tilson, David

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Wood, Bob

Flaherty, Jim

Maves, Bart

Young, Terence H.

Fox, Gary

Munro, Julia

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 20; the nays are 35.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters related to private members' business having been debated, I will now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SILENT VIGIL

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It was 79 Fridays ago that the Sisters of Providence of St Vincent de Paul began holding vigils at Kingston's city hall. They have since been joined by other citizens from the community such as the Kingston Action Network.

The vigils are silent but send a powerful message of solidarity with the most vulnerable in our society, especially women and children, who are bearing the brunt of relentless government cuts to social, health and education spending.

Normally these vigils take place at noon. Sometimes protesters draw even more attention to their cause, as they have, through forming a candlelight circle around city hall and by displaying a six-foot cross on Good Friday. The occasional evening vigil aims at allowing more people to participate.

On behalf of the sisters, I would like to invite members of the public to join them at city hall in Kingston tomorrow, May 2, at 5:30 pm.

In the words of Sister Pauline Lally, "Your peaceful presence at this demonstration will help urge governments to consider the causes of poverty and unemployment, for more things are wrought by non-violent solidarity than the world dreams of."

Governments, stop attacking the weak, the vulnerable, the unemployed, the old and the young in our society, and instead build a society of harmony, goodwill and compassion, especially to the less fortunate in our society.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise again on an issue that is close to the heart of every citizen of my community of Sault Ste Marie, and should be close to the heart of every citizen in this province, as this government moves forward in lockstep to privatize anything that moves or creates a little bit of revenue for the government in their wont to turn it over to their private sector friends.

I'm talking today particularly about the lottery corporation. I have in my hand the annual report for 1995-96 and it's an excellent testimony to the people of that corporation and the work they do -- the effectiveness and the efficiency of the operation.

Let me just flip through the book and highlight some of the things that are said: "We develop and operate lottery schemes on behalf of the provincial government. Our vision is to be the recognized leader in the gaming industry in Ontario." In fact they are the recognized leader across North America. "Almost 97% of our revenue is returned to the people of Ontario." What else do you want? "New standards in performance, efficiency and profitability," "Setting standards for success," it's all here, a blueprint for a corporation that is beyond reproach and speaks very clearly and directly to the integrity of the product they deliver.

Can this government guarantee for one second that when they turn this over to the private sector that integrity will still be there and the kind of money that is now flowing will continue to flow?

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): Mr Speaker, May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. Sexual assault is a pervasive form of violence in our society that devastates the lives of too many women. While we can measure related hospital costs, treatment costs, lost wages and missed work hours, we will never be able to measure the pain that forever changes a survivor's life.

As I speak, Dianne Cunningham, minister responsible for women's issues, is launching Sexual Assault Prevention Month in St Catharines and is announcing a community victims initiatives program grant of $13,750 to the Women's Place. This grant will fund an anti-stalking initiative.

As well, this month Minister Cunningham will announce a number of new initiatives aimed specifically at preventing sexual assault and the Ontario women's directorate will launch its website, an information and linkage station to resources and educational materials.

It is important that government educators and community organizations work together to ensure that Ontario's youth are made aware of the effects of violence. Thanks to a lot of hard work from Partners for Change, a multisector partnership initiative, our government will participate in the launch of a multimedia education campaign on violence prevention specifically targeted at youth.

The contribution of women to this province is invaluable. Together we look forward to celebrating the day when violence against women is stopped and when we need not designate a month in the name of sexual assault prevention.

PORT COLBORNE GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "Certainly, I can guarantee you it's not my plan to close hospitals." With those comforting words, Conservative leader Mike Harris lulled Ontario residents into a false sense of security, as Mr Harris and his Conservative candidates made no mention of closing hospitals in the Niagara region or elsewhere in Ontario.

A large delegation of Port Colborne residents is present today at the Legislature to deliver 12,000 postcards to the Ontario government demanding that their hospital, the Port Colborne hospital, not be closed, in keeping with the solemn promise of Mike Harris on television in May 1995.

I support this worried delegation and the people they represent. Port Colborne hospital should not be closed and should not be radically changed and simply disguised as a hospital. Those Conservative MPPs who stand in the House and extol the virtues of the so-called Common Sense Revolution cannot go back to their home constituencies and play the role of the local hero who will defend the community hospital. The Harris plan, calling for generous income tax cuts for the rich, means hospitals will close, regardless of the Premier's promise.

The Niagara region has the largest percentage of seniors of any area in Canada and will need all its hospitals, including the Port Colborne hospital, to serve the needs of its aging population. Mike Harris should abandon his plan to make the rich richer with a large tax cut and should restore adequate funding to our hospitals for years to come. Our people deserve no less.

SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I just came from a rally outside the Attorney General's office which was attended by my colleagues Peter Kormos and Shelley Martel. There were representatives from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Employment Standards Work Group, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, the Ontario Health Coalition, the Ontario Federation of Labour, Bad Boss Hotline, OPSEU.

All of these representatives were there to talk today about Women and Children Last! in terms of this government's agenda. I know I'm not allowed to show it, so I will describe it to you. It's a start-to-finish spiral of what has happened to women and children in this government. It's only a few pieces of this government's agenda.

It starts, "Tories destroy the family support plan; Tories cut the social assistance payments by 22%, reduce the shelter allowance portion and restrict eligibility; Tories attack co-op and social housing, remove rent controls and reduce tenant protections;... Tories smash workers' rights, undo workplace protections and disband the Workplace Health and Safety Agency" -- I'm skipping a few now -- "Tories soften pay equity, scrap employment equity and reduce harassment protections, calling them `red tape';... Tories reduce subsidies, deregulate child care and cancel junior kindergarten" -- it goes on and on.

It's time for this government to wake up and listen.

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I rise to call to the attention of all members that this Sunday, May 4, is Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day.

It is a day on which all Ontarians reflect on the horror of the Holocaust, during which more than six million Jews perished in the Nazi death camps in Europe.

Yom Hashoah is a time to consider the depths of human cruelty and savagery that were unleashed on an innocent people whose only crime was their religion, their adherence to the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. It is also a time for us to renew our common resolve and commitment to ensure that no further Holocaust will ever occur again.

As is done at Yad Vashem in Israel, Yom Hashoah also reminds us of those who risked their lives in trying to protect their Jewish brothers and sisters. As Jewish tradition states, they are the righteous of the nations for their heroism.

On Sunday, May 4, may we all take a moment to remember the martyrs of the Holocaust and to pray for the survivors of that terror and to join in the struggle against the evil of anti-Semitism and racism. Shalom.

MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I wonder what the Minister of Natural Resources has against the Boy Scouts. Last year he made the Boy Scouts pay rent for the land they camp on. This year he seems to be in a more generous mood and he agreed to contribute $40,000 towards the Canadian Scout Jamboree that will be held in Thunder Bay this summer.

According to the minister, it was decided that the money would go towards the purchase of a unique commemorative T-shirt that would foster a positive image for northern Ontario. It sounds great, but here's the shirt. It seems the minister's idea of fostering a positive image for northern Ontario is to have his own name across the chest of 12,000 Boy Scouts.

It is scout policy not to advertise for anything or anybody, not even a minister who wants to buy $40,000 worth of personal publicity. So the minister has apologized, sort of, and is now paying for his name to be covered over by a crest. At least, I hope --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. You're out of order. Please keep the shirt down. It's a demonstration. Member.

Mrs McLeod: I continue by saying that the minister has sort of apologized. He is now paying for the cost of having his name covered with a crest. At least, I hope he is paying, because he actually only paid for a --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich, I warn you to put that down and take --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Your time's up. Can you take that down from that chair, please.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): In the past several days I've been receiving copies of letters sent to the Premier by arts administrators and artists urging this government to maintain the funding for the Ontario Arts Council at its 1996-97 level for the 1997-98 fiscal year.

We all recognize that the arts are a vital expression of the soul of the people. The existence of Ontario arts industries is critically threatened by cuts instituted by the government. The Ontario Arts Council is the key institution for supporting the production and dissemination of artistic endeavours in Ontario and a key source of support for individual artists and arts organizations.

The accomplishments and investments in the last 30 years in the arts stand to be reversed by the fatal funding cuts, as we have seen in the last 20 months. The cut of 30% to the OAC along with the cuts to other programs by the Ministry of Citizenship have impacted severely on the province's arts and cultural sector. We all know that a strong and healthy artistic community is essential to the social and economic health of Ontario.

I'd like to quote from an

article written by Victor Hugo, author of Les Misérables and parliamentary deputy, written in 1848. It's as timely today as it was then:

"It is my view...that the proposed budget reductions in letters, sciences and the arts are bad for two reasons. They are insignificant from a financial standpoint and harmful from every other point of view. Ignorance, ignorance is the danger far more than poverty. Lighting is provided in cities, where street lamps are lit up every evening at crossroads and in public squares. When will people understand that darkness can also overcome us in the moral sense and that we must light up torches for the human spirit?"

SCARBOROUGH FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise in the House today as the member for Scarborough Centre in order to recognize the outstanding achievement of two Scarborough firefighters. Recently the Scarborough Optimist Club recognized two Scarborough firefighters, Geoffrey Reeves and Douglas Arsenault, as the firefighters of the year for 1996. Geoffrey and Douglas were recognized for their quick response and actions in reviving a Scarborough resident who had suffered a heart attack on November 23, 1996, with the use of a defibrillator.

On November 23, 1996, Scarborough pumper crew number 5 responded to a medical emergency in Scarborough. Upon arrival, they found a 69-year-old male absent of any vital signs. Firefighters Reeves and Arsenault immediately attached the defibrillator machine to the patient and administered the first shock. The procedure was successful and the patient's vital signs were restored.

This is the first documented incident of a patient being revived as a result of the firefighter defibrillation program first introduced by Metro-area fire departments in September 1996.

The program, which is directed by Sunnybrook hospital, will see that every pumper in the Metro area will have a defibrillator machine on board and that the firefighters are trained in the use and maintenance of the machine.

Results in other cities using firefighter defibrillators indicate that up to 25% of cardiac arrest victims can be saved with this technique.

I ask the members of this House to join me today in commending the actions of First Class Firefighter Geoffrey Reeves and First Class Firefighter Douglas Arsenault.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm going to read to you standing order 32(a): "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed."

Standing order 32(

c) says, "Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to opposition party leaders, or their representatives, at or before the time the statement is made in the House."

Standing order 32(

e) says, "Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of each of the recognized opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party commencing with the official opposition."

Earlier today I received a press release put out by the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, the minister responsible for women's issues. Paragraph 2 of that news release says this: "Isabel Bassett, MPP, St Andrew-St Patrick, is today detailing the wide range of government initiatives that will support victims of sexual assault on behalf of Minister Cunningham, Isabel Bassett will deliver a statement to the House to raise community awareness of Sexual Assault Prevention Month."

I normally don't do this, because I understand the rules do not permit us to comment on absent members, but in this case it's relevant because the member for St Andrew-St Patrick is not here. However, the member for Bruce made that statement, it appears to me, on behalf of the minister. She referred to the fact that it was Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

Normally on this day the minister responsible for the government and opposition parties make statements in the House to talk about this extremely important issue. The minister is not here today. I was expecting some kind of unanimous consent so that we can, each of the opposition parties as well, comment and make statements about Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

What I would request of you now, Speaker, because the member for Bruce made a statement on behalf of the minister, albeit during members' statements, is that the opposition parties have the opportunity to respond to that statement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me be clear: I don't have any authority to grant opposition parties time for responses to statements. That's not within the realm of the Speaker.

The point of order you're raising, I take it, is that the member for Bruce was reading what you deem to be a ministry statement.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): She made an announcement.

The Speaker: Okay. You are seeking unanimous consent of this House --

Ms Churley: No.

The Speaker: Clarification, the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: Further to the point of order: I'm not sure I understand the point you made with respect to not being able to grant the five minutes. The point we are raising is that the member for Bruce, as was set out and anticipated in the minister's press release, made a statement on behalf of the minister. You will note in the statement she made it was not just generalities; she referred to and announced a specific grant to Women's Place, a women's centre. We believe that is in the nature of a ministerial statement and, by the rules, either should not be allowed or the parties should have an opportunity to respond.

Given that a minister of the crown has actually put out a press release stating that this statement would be made in the House on behalf of the minister, it does take on the nature of a ministerial statement. I would hope you would actually be able to rule that or that the government at this point would agree that it was a ministerial statement.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): The statement that was made by the member for Bruce is a member's statement, pure and simple. The member for Bruce has concern with regard to this matter --

Ms Lankin: The press release says that on behalf of the minister --

Hon David Johnson: What the press release says is immaterial. The fact that's before you today is that the member for Bruce has concern with regard to this particular topic. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick has not made any statement today. Members are within their full rights to make statements during members' statements. The member for Bruce has availed herself. The members from the NDP could have made a member's statement today if they chose to. Indeed --

Ms Lankin: We did.

Hon David Johnson: Well, there you are, so they've had their opportunity already, and members of the Liberal Party could make a statement during members' statements. That's, pure and simple, the situation, that the member is entitled to make a member's statement.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): There is absolutely no question that the press release that is done by the Ontario women's directorate, with the minister's name heading up the press release, is virtually identical to the statement that was made by the member here in the House today. It is a pretence to suggest this is anything other than the government making a ministerial statement and using a member to do that, and in doing that, denying the opposition members their five minutes' opportunity to respond on the subject.

I really do feel, if it's not a violation of points of order, it is certainly a violation of the privileges of the members of the opposition.

The Speaker: Thank you. Let me just read to you from Journals of the Legislative Assembly 1987-88-89, 34th Parliament, first session. Speaker Edighoffer said:

"I think it's appropriate that in future parliamentary assistants should not make statements using this procedure if the proposed statement is one that could just as well be made by the minister. In other words, parliamentary assistants can still make statements dealing with special matters for which they have special responsibilities, but that statement should not constitute an announcement or a series of facts that should be more properly situated in the statements by the ministry

section of our proceedings."

I read this statement from the member for Bruce and I honestly can't read it any other way than back to you.

"Mr Speaker, May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. Sexual assault is a pervasive form of violence in our society" etc. It goes on to say on page 2: "As I speak, Dianne Cunningham, minister responsible for women's issues, is launching Sexual Assault Prevention Month in St Catharines and is announcing a community victims initiative program grant of $13,750 to the Women's Place. This grant will fund an anti-stalking initiative."

Then you go on the say, to the member for Bruce, "As well, this month, Minister Cunningham will announce a number of new initiatives aimed specifically at preventing sexual assault, and the Ontario women's directorate will launch its Web site, an information and linkage station to resources and educational materials."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Breaking the rules.

The Speaker: Order. This would appear to me to be a minister's statement. If the minister is out making this statement in St Catharines, it is inappropriate for a member for stand in this place using the minister's name to make the same statement. I can't see how in any way, shape or form this can be considered a member's statement when the minister herself is in fact out there in the province making the same statement as a ministry statement.

I would suggest to the members of the government that if there are going to be statements made, they must be ministry statements. If they're going to announce initiatives, you have to announce those initiatives during the proper process, which is ministry statements, and allow opposition the opportunity to respond in the five-minute process.

Having said that, I have no power to authorize a five-minute response for the opposition, or a minute-and-a-half response, or any such thing. All I can do is caution the government members, when making their statements, to be careful they're not making ministry statements. With the greatest respect, to the members of the government side, to the member for Bruce, this seems fairly clear to me to be a ministry statement.

Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I respect your ruling. I would, therefore, given that you feel you cannot compel the government members to allow the opposition --

The Speaker: Are you seeking unanimous consent?

Ms Churley: Yes, I'm seeking unanimous consent.

The Speaker: The member for Riverdale is seeking unanimous consent for a five-minute response for the opposition. Is there unanimous consent? No, there is not.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am wondering if something that I have here --

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: No, this is something I have to show the Speaker -- whether this violates the rules of this assembly. As you can see, there is a shirt that has the minister's name on it.

The Speaker: Order. With respect to the House leader, I assume the member is standing on a point of order that this somehow violates the orders of the House because the minister's name is on it. I honestly can't even begin to understand where in the standing orders that could possibly be a point of order.

Mr Bradley: I would rise on a point of privilege, then, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Well, then, a point of privilege.

Mr Bradley: The point of privilege is this -- and the only reason I held this up was I didn't want you just to take my word for it, I wanted you to know that the name of the Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, is actually on this shirt -- that the government apparently paid a one-third amount of the money to produce these shirts.

What I'm worried about as a matter of privilege is whether government funds were used to promote a particular minister; in other words, that government funds that were provided, and I think appropriately, for the production of this shirt were on some kind of condition with somebody in the government that the minister's name be on it. I don't know whether that's true or not.

The Speaker: Let me say to the member for St Catharines, it's not that long ago when construction projects were being built in this province where the minister's name would be put on the billboards. It was stopped recently. I don't think there's anything I can go to, any rule that says the minister can't have his name on a T-shirt. If you want to take this up as a question during question period, that's probably a really good question, but it isn't a point of order and it's probably not a point of privilege.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, it's not a point of privilege. I appreciate your input.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I think there's a very simple way to resolve this. The Minister of Natural Resources can simply pay back the money --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, and they're both out of order. Member for St Catharines, I heard your point of order; it didn't qualify. I heard your point of privilege; it didn't qualify.

Mr Bradley: I think you misinterpreted --

The Speaker: I will accept written submissions from you on behalf of that particular point of privilege.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RED RIVER FLOODING

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think we on all sides of this House have been watching with a mix of concern, sympathy and indeed helplessness as the worst flood in more than 150 years spreads havoc through the southern part of our sister province of Manitoba.

The strength and community spirit of Manitobans during this very difficult time is an inspiration, I believe, to all in our country. Over the last few days the hardworking people in towns like Emerson, Morris and Ste Agathe have been struggling to cope with unpredictable waters. Now the overflowing Red River threatens to affect the city of Winnipeg with the same kind of indiscriminate destruction.

I know many Ontarians -- individuals, businesses, institutions -- have lent their support to the people of Manitoba through hard work, money and other donations.

I personally communicated with Premier Filmon offering the assistance of our government and our resources. Officials in the Ministry of Natural Resources are also in close contact with their counterparts in our sister province of Manitoba.

I believe as all 130 of us in this Legislature return to our ridings this weekend, we all in a non-partisan way can lend a hand in Ontario's collective efforts to encourage family, friends and constituents to do the same. Donations can be made at any Royal Bank branch. I know that here in the greater Toronto area food and clothing can be dropped off at any fire station in Metro Toronto, Mississauga or Brampton, and in your towns and your communities other arrangements may be being made.

I know that the thoughts of all members in this House, and indeed all Ontarians, are with the good people of southern Manitoba as we extend to them our support, our encouragement and our prayers.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): This afternoon the Premier, several of my cabinet colleagues and I met with the negotiating team from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to inform them that we are accepting most of their proposed amendments to the Who Does What legislation.

Before discussing the changes I would like to remind the honourable members of our goals in the entire Who Does What exercise.

The first was to reduce taxes by ending the spiralling cost of education in this province. That was the first priority. The second goal was to reduce taxes by disentangling the duplication and delivery of services between the provincial and municipal governments. The third goal was to bring tax fairness to the people of this province, regardless of the municipality in which they live.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Hon Mr Leach: Since announcing the Who Does What package, several municipalities, organizations and individuals have expressed legitimate concerns about the impact of two decisions: changing the funding formula for welfare and requiring municipalities to be responsible for funding long-term care.

When our original package was announced, I challenged AMO and other organizations to come up with alternative solutions and ideas. Our only condition was that any new package meet our three goals.

These proposed amendments will address many of the concerns raised by the groups and individuals about this government's intention to end waste and duplication between the two levels of government. They met that challenge and provided us with new ideas that, I am happy to say, our government is prepared to adopt. In fact, we are accepting almost all of the proposals put forward by AMO.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Sudbury, Windsor-Walkerville, Yorkview and Fort William, please come to order. I'd like to be able to hear this statement. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It became clear during our consultations that AMO had a proposal that met our objectives without the province assuming the total cost of education. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario proposed that the province assume half the current education costs paid by residential property taxes, not all of them. Furthermore, AMO proposed that the province, not individual school boards, set a province-wide residential property tax rate for education.

After consulting with my cabinet colleagues, we concluded that this was an acceptable compromise because it will permit the province to cut education property taxes in half and to limit future increases in education taxes. It is the province's intention to set a rate that collects half the current $5 billion in residential education property taxes. Once set, that rate will be frozen.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

While accepting most of AMO's proposals, the one we did not accept was the proposal to permit boards of education to increase residential property taxes annually by up to 5%. That is contrary to this government's policy of reducing unwarranted tax increases.

The shift in responsibility for education costs now allows the province to address two other concerns. This government heard concerns expressed by many municipalities and individuals about the impact of funding changes to welfare and long-term care. I am pleased to report to this House that, based on the recommendations of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the government will not proceed with its proposal to share welfare costs on a 50-50 basis.

Furthermore, to end the confusing system of differing cost-sharing arrangements, the province will fund 80% of all general welfare benefits and child care, with municipalities respons