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

February 3, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L155 - Mon 3 Feb 1997 / Lun 3 Fév 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

FIRE SAFETY

HUMAN RIGHTS

KRISTA SEPP MEMORIAL AWARD

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

HUMAN RIGHTS

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HOSPITAL FINANCING

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

CHILD CARE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

EDUCATION FINANCING

HIGHWAY FINANCING

EDUCATION FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

VISITOR

COMMENTS OF MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

WORKFARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

FIRE SAFETY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE

OAKS DETOXIFICATION SERVICES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

BEAR HUNTING

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

RELEASE OF SEX OFFENDERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, CULTURE AND RECREATION), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES CIVIQUES, DE LA CULTURE ET DES LOISIRS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF FINANCE), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DES FINANCES

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DE L'ALIMENTATION ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF HEALTH), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU NORD ET DES MINES

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ÉNERGIE

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL

OPPOSITION DAY

PROPERTY TAXATION

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I'm very happy, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, to express our congratulations to all the participants in the Special Olympics World Winter Games being held in Toronto and Collingwood this week.

We are honoured as a community and as a province as a whole to be hosting some remarkable athletes from 80 countries from around the world. These young men and women have gathered here against considerable odds and sometimes limited expectations to show all of us the meaning of effort in adversity and of striving to be the best one can be. We can all take lessons from that.

I would like also to congratulate the organizers of this event. By your efforts, you show how meaningful this occasion is and how much fun we can have when we all share in the spirit of athletic achievement on such a grand scale together.

The best part of following Olympic events is the athletes themselves. We feel for each and every one of them, no matter what country they come from, as we see how much heart they put into their determination to win. They are all winners, those who come first, but no less those who put forward their very best effort when the eyes of the world are upon them. We are filled with admiration for these young athletes and salute their courage and achievement.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This morning, Marion Boyd, the member for London Centre, and myself, along with others, joined Ontario's professional firefighters as they illustrated in a very graphic, a very visceral way how dangerous Bill 84 is going to be to our communities, to our firefighters and to the people they have so courageously and professionally served until now.

They point out that Bill 84, which this government wants to impose upon the communities of Ontario and on professional firefighters, is going to mean fewer firefighters when and where people in danger and people confronted by the tragedy of fire and other accidents and health-threatening situations need them.

It's going to mean that part-time employees are going to be replacing full-time professional firefighters. That means people with only part-time experience and with less training are going to be in there in the thick of things when we need the skilled professional firefighter most.

It's going to mean, I tell you, privatization of firefighting services. It hasn't worked in the United States and it won't work well for the health and safety of communities and families here in Ontario.

It's going to mean an expansion of bureaucracy and it's going to mean an attack on the highly skilled levels of teamwork that professional firefighters have developed in every community across Ontario.

We were proud to join with firefighters in condemning Bill 84, condemning Harris and --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Ontario is a refuge for people from all over the world. Many new Ontarians who live in my riding have escaped from religious, social and political persecution. They took refuge from tyranny, denial of human rights, deprivation of citizenship and franchise. They came to Ontario for equal opportunity and hope for their children, but they can't forget the turmoil at home.

It is difficult to contrast the freedoms enjoyed here with the denial of the most basic rules of democracy and the violence taking place in other parts of the world.

The Tamil community here in Ontario and in my riding is presently observing a week of fasting and prayer to express their distress over the lack of human rights for Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Several members of the Tamil community are in the gallery today: the Reverend Canon J. Francis Xavier, Anton Sinarasa Philip, and Mr and Mrs Thillaiampalam Thavarajam.

I support the Tamil community's call for peace and an end to injustice. Human rights are the most fundamental rights for everyone.

I would like to add my voice in this Legislature to the Tamil cries for justice, and I call upon my colleagues in this House to support the Tamils' desire for a lasting peace all over the world.

KRISTA SEPP MEMORIAL AWARD

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): As I rise, the nominees for the 1997 Krista Sepp Memorial Award are being honoured and are celebrating the achievements of all the nominees.

The Krista Sepp Memorial Award was established back in 1991 in memory of Krista Sepp, who was murdered on February 3, 1989, while in the performance of her duties as a child and youth counsellor in a group home in Midland after only nine days on the job. The award is given annually to celebrate Krista's life and to recognize the contribution of child and youth counsellors to young people and their families in Ontario.

The award recognizes the qualities Krista brought to her work, which included enthusiasm, empathy, high ideals, a thirst for knowledge and a capacity to apply theory to practice; the role of child and youth counsellors in delivering service to children and their families in Ontario; and the high-risk and often undervalued work of providing service to a population with many complex and painful problems.

The recipient of the fifth annual Krista Sepp Memorial Award is Ms Dorothy Morari, a child and youth worker from the George Hull Centre for Children and Families in Etobicoke. She was chosen by the committee from among 24 nominees across the province, including Ms Chantal Payette from the Roberts/Smart Centre in my riding.

I am certain that all the members of the Legislature will join me in congratulating all the nominees for being chosen and for their ongoing very valuable work they do on behalf of troubled children and youth and their families.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): One of the many negative results of the cuts to the family support plan has been that payors and recipients have suffered additional charges because of late or missing cheques. They are penalty charges on personal NSF cheques, late mortgage payments, late hydro, gas and phone payments.

The Attorney General claims he wants to compensate clients for these charges, but nothing is further from the truth. He has made no effort to contact FSP clients to advise they are entitled to help. The propaganda piece mailed to all clients in October had no information on compensation. The propaganda piece mailed out to MPPs two weeks ago again had no information. The FSP automated phone system does not provide a number to call for help on this matter. Only once, in response to a question I raised in this House, did the Attorney General publicly release a phone number clients could call for information.

If you didn't watch question period that day or if you weren't quick enough to write it down, you're out of luck.

Worse still, Harnick is limiting compensation to clients whose cheques were delayed only in September and October. He has truly sunk to a new low. Trying to pretend that payment problems were limited to two months only does not make it so. Families who used to receive regular support payments are still calling my office because of late or lost cheques. It is clear the Attorney General is still not prepared to accept responsibility for his cuts or to pay people who should be paid. This minister should notify all clients that they might be entitled and he should accept --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today as the member for Scarborough Centre to mark a special occasion. This is the second year since the federal government declared February Black History Month. We in Ontario are fortunate to live in a province whose identity is firmly rooted in its rich heritage and strong cultural traditions.

People of many different backgrounds have contributed to this powerful legacy, including a vibrant African-Canadian community. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the important contributions this community has made in the areas of politics, the arts, education, medicine, indeed in all aspects of life in Ontario.

This month not only celebrates the outstanding achievements of black Ontarians, it goes far beyond, highlighting the value and importance of cultural sharing to a society and a nation.

Black History Week was first observed by Carter G. Woodson of the United States in February 1926. Now, more than 70 years later, hundreds of thousands are involved in the month-long celebrations not only here in Ontario but throughout North America.

I am pleased the Legislature is sitting at this time so that I have the opportunity to publicly recognize the celebration and this community for its accomplishments.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This government continues to waste taxpayers' money on an ad campaign that will cost in excess of $2.3 million when it is complete. This ad is not only a waste of money but an insult to the people of Ontario.

Every time I see one of these ads that is costing us thousands of dollars, I'm reminded of the hospitals that the Minister of Health is closing in Sudbury and around the province, and the hundreds of nurses that this government seems to think are expendable.

When I look at the ads promoting efficiency in government I wonder what the regional taxpayers of Sudbury are thinking, when it will cost them $1,600 more per household to pay for these service efficiencies; I wonder what the Hamilton-Wentworth taxpayers are thinking when it's going to cost them $625 more per household for these service efficiencies. I wonder if they're thinking what I'm thinking: "Whom are they trying to fool with this ads?"

When I see ads promoting educational efficiency I think about the parents who have children with special needs, about the parents who have children in classroom sizes of 38, 40 and 42. I wonder what they're thinking.

Clearly this government is abusing its power; it's abusing its privilege. The next ads should promote, with the three monkeys, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."

HUMAN RIGHTS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I would like to join today with my colleague from Scarborough West in expressing my support to the Tamil community in Metro Toronto. I attended yesterday as well, with the member from Scarborough West and other politicians and many people from the Tamil community who are deeply saddened and distressed by the kinds of atrocities that are taking place in their homeland -- I note, along with the member for Scarborough West, that some of them are with us in the gallery today and they're very anxious to let people know about what is happening to human rights in their homeland.

I want to express to them today my sympathies and my support for this week of fasting and prayer to try to do their bit to end the kinds of atrocities and denial of human rights back in their homeland. It is very difficult for us here in Canada to even begin to imagine the kinds of difficulties and atrocities that their friends, their families are going through in their homeland. I applaud them for their community activism here in Toronto, for not forgetting their families and friends back home and for expressing their keen desire for the rest of us to join with them in calling for human rights to be brought back in their homeland.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Today marks the first day of competition at the Special Olympics World Winter Games. For the first time, these games are being held in Canada, and I'm proud to say Ontario is the venue for all the events.

This is the largest international multisport event held anywhere in the world in 1997. More than 2,000 of the best athletes with developmental disabilities from 80 countries will vie for medals, including 82 from Canada and 33 from Ontario.

They will display their talents in figure skating, speed skating and floor hockey competitions at various locations in Metro Toronto; alpine skiing at Blue Mountain in Collingwood, and cross-country skiing at both Collingwood and Duntroon. There will also be two demonstration sports: eisstock, a form of curling, and snowshoeing.

The Special Olympics World Winter Games, and the athletes in particular, help enormously to increase public awareness and understanding of people with developmental disabilities. The games also give athletes the opportunity to display their talents on an international stage, strive for personal best, and gain valuable cultural experiences from their peers. Special Olympians, through dedication and hard work, set a standard of excellence that inspires our youth to participate across Ontario.

I think I can speak for everyone in this House today when I say we're all very proud of our athletes.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the host communities of Toronto, Collingwood and Duntroon and to wish athletes participating at the Special Olympics World Winter Games the very best of success.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I rise today to announce our government's reinvestment of $57 million in Ontario's hospitals. By strategically reinvesting --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. There's opportunity for five minutes of response. You'll have to go one at a time then, but you can get your chance.

Hon David Johnson: By strategically reinvesting into hospital-based services, this government has once again put the needs of Ontario patients first.

In recent months, hospitals in some communities across the province have expressed concern that population growth and serving the needs of patients over large geographic areas have increased pressure on their budgets. I'm proud to say that this government is directly responding to these concerns by reinvesting $57 million in hospitals that face unique and special circumstances.

Specifically, this $57-million reinvestment includes $18 million for hospitals which experienced higher than expected demand for services last year due to an increase in the population above the provincial average; $14 million to recognize the special challenges facing northern Ontario hospitals which serve patients over large geographic areas; and a renewal of $25 million in funding for those hospitals in the greater Toronto area with significant population increases.

This $57-million reinvestment is coupled with the release of almost $6.4 billion in 1997-98 allocations of funding to individual hospitals. These funding allocations were determined by a formula developed by the Ontario Hospital Association and hospital administrators in partnership with the government. The 1997-98 hospital allocations represent the second year of a multi-year funding allocation program put in place by this government to give hospitals greater predictability in funding.

This funding announcement is the latest in this government's continual process of reinvesting in Ontario's health care system. Last Friday I had the pleasure of announcing $3.5 million to increase long-term-care services for Grey-Owen Sound, and another $1 million for chronic care services in the Dufferin-Caledon Health Care Corp. The week before, I announced almost $4 million for long-term-care services in Halton and Brampton.

The $57 million is the first in a series of announcements for hospitals. In the weeks to come, I will be making announcements on hospital-based priority programs and services for Ontario patients such as cardiac care, cancer, dialysis and mental health.

Putting the needs of Ontario patients first by reinvesting into front-line services is a top priority of this government. In fact, since coming to office in 1995, this government has announced an investment of over $685 million into services for patients. This is a commitment we are proud to carry on even as the federal Liberal government continues to slash over $2 billion from health and social transfers to Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's Monday.

Hon David Johnson: There does seem to be a little sensitivity about mentioning that $2-billion cut, doesn't there, Mr Speaker?

Reinvestments like the one I am making today, along with those that have come before and the many that will follow in the future, demonstrate this government's vision of an improved and integrated health care system, one in which all of the pieces in the system come together to provide patients with the right care at the right time and in the right place.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Our part-time Minister of Health should hang his head in shame for the statement he made today. The same day that he was traipsing around in Dufferin and Mississauga, holding up signs about reinvesting money, he was sending letters -- this memo right here was being sent -- to every hospital across this province, telling them how much money they were losing.

The largest cut in health care, the largest cut in hospitals, ever done in this province was enacted by this minister on Friday. This government, which has no shame when it comes to the sick and the elderly, has the audacity to come and reannounce some money to try to take the eyes off of what was actually happening. To see this government operate in such a cynical fashion is disturbing in the extreme.

Mr Minister, you should stand in your place today and explain how you've cut $70 million more away than you took last year. Minister, tell the truth when it comes to the state of the province's hospitals. What you've done to nurses, to patients, to doctors in this province is unprecedented and it's your responsibility.

This government has gone through on its ill-thought-out plans to cut from hospitals before it has any kind of plan anywhere else in place. They're disturbing the ability of health care professionals of institutions in this province to provide even basic decent care.

When we look at the announcement that this minister tried to distract us with, he tried to have us look the other way and not see the $435 million that are threatening closures of hospitals in places like the Niagara region, the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, West Lincoln Memorial Hospital, which tonight is having at least a discussion, trying to get in on this minister's decision, the Port Colborne General Hospital, Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, Niagara-on-the-Lake General Hospital, and St Mary's General Hospital in Kitchener, all of these threatened by this minister's inaction in the face of a very, very bad plan.

We see the minister pretending that his announcements have something to do with fixing the problem when in fact they're directed elsewhere, and 84% of the money you're putting forward is going where? Surprisingly, to Tory ridings, to the people opposite who are using that little bit of money to buy off their constituents and try and quiet them down and not be worried about the fundamental fact that 6% of the money that used to be in the health care system is leaving, that it's going south with this minister and with that announcement.

When we look at the minister's pretence that the money he tried to allocate is going to do something about it, we see that the Ontario Hospital Association says on the same day that his approach makes no sense, that he should not be making these cuts while he has no plan for dealing with the province's hospitals.

This minister's standing up in this House today to try and make some political hay out of the fact that they're taking money away from people and giving a very small amount back will not make any difference to the wellbeing of patients in this province. Your efforts here today will not fool anyone.

Patients will be able to tell the difference. They're telling it now in the delays in emergency rooms, they're telling it now in the quality of care they're getting and they're telling it now because they know the difference when someone tries to pull this over their heads.

We know also that a situation has emerged in Windsor that people want to hear about.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Minister, how could you stand in the House today and make this kind of announcement after you stood on your feet last week and said you were making an announcement soon that would address my problem in the Windsor area? When you released that list on Friday, Windsor was not on your list. You chose to ignore our area and you did that on purpose. How can you stand there today and fool the people of Ontario as though you really are reinvesting? In my community I am hearing daily, every hour, case after case of people who simply are not able to access good health care. It's a well-known fact: "Don't go to the hospital alone." We all know that.

Your announcements today do absolutely nothing for those of us who need it: the sick, the elderly, the seniors. Windsor is going to be the thing that brings you down, Minister, because it happens first in Windsor. We were the first to reconfigure, and to do that you took more money away. Now you're threatening to take even more money away.

What you're announcing today is simply not acceptable to anyone in Essex county. You left us off the list. Last week you said that you were making an announcement that would somehow address the problems for Windsor residents. Our people will not suffer this much longer. My phone has been besieged, but in a very short matter your phones too will be besieged, and we are looking for answers from our Minister of Health.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Remember St Catharines as well when you're trying to close hospitals.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): You want us to remember St Catharines?

The Speaker: There's no such thing as six seconds of dead air, I take it.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The Tories may have lost Paul Rhodes but they haven't lost their ability to spin a story to the people of Ontario. This is really quite a disgraceful exhibition of how this government is constantly trying to say to people, "Black is white; white is black."

This minister dares to stand in his seat and tell the people of Ontario that he is distributing $61 million of new money when there is no new money at all. Every cent of this announcement comes out of the reductions that have happened to other hospitals, and those reductions range anywhere from 4% to 8%. Let the people of this province understand that the growth funds which are necessary -- no one argues that where there's high demand in the north and in high-growth areas those needs need to be met, but everyone must understand that those needs are being met at the expense of other people.

In my riding of London, when you add inflation in, the reductions happening to the London Academic Health Sciences Centre are about 10% of its budget, and that is going to make a huge difference to health care in my area. Every member in this House needs to understand that this announcement today is an effort on the part of this part-time Minister of Health to try and convince people that this government is not taking away dollars from health care.

The people of Ontario are getting very tired of this kind of show on the part of this government, and they know better. They know that people are being released too early from the hospital. They know that they as families, as communities are being asked to care for people because this government has gone ahead with reducing those budgets before restructuring is completed, before the reinvestment into community services is complete.

My colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich talks about the difficulty in her hospitals, and we all saw in the news the complete incompetence of this minister and ministry in terms of closing down the existing long-term-care facility that had worked well and had been a one-stop shop in her community and now has been destroyed by this government.

The people of Ontario are getting very tired. They listen to people like David MacKinnon, the OHA president. The OHA has been very supportive of the need to restructure, but they have been very clear. This government continues again and again to withdraw money, to force hospitals to make decisions which may not be the best and most economic decisions, because what is to be put in place in terms of community care has not been announced.

No one knows what those facilities are going to be, no one knows what that funding is going to be, and in the meantime, the patients of this province are being grossly disadvantaged. They're being endangered, and we are hearing story after story from community after community about patients who have been released too early and who have not been able to get the care they require within their communities.

When we talk about this government downloading, let's be very clear. It's downloading not only on to the municipalities but on to everyone in the community when it takes the care, the expert, committed care of professional health care workers, over 8,000 of whom have received their notices in the last nine months alone, takes those professional people out of the health care system and makes all of us responsible for the care of people whom we love and who we know need that care. And this minister dares to stand and try to disguise the taking of $435 million out of the hospital system as a good-news item.

Let's be very clear. All of the announcements that this minister and this government have made about long-term care are already assigned dollars. This is not new money; this is money that has been announced for a long time, and they keep announcing and reannouncing and reannouncing and trying to fool the people of Ontario into believing this is new money that they're giving to the care of the people of Ontario, and it is not the case.

It can be shown again and again that this is part of the shell game that this Tory government is trying to put over on the citizens of Ontario, and they're going to find out that the citizens of Ontario are smarter than that. They understand that you cannot take money from one pocket, put it into another, put into another, put it into another. Somebody loses, and it's the patient --

The Speaker: Thank you. It's time for oral questions. Leader of the official opposition.

Oh, I've got to read this into the record; I'm sorry. We'll restart the clock when the time comes.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to

section 31(

b) of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a response from the Honourable Gregory Evans, Integrity Commissioner, to the request from the member for Riverdale on whether the member for St George-St David had contravened the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, as a result of certain actions taken by his executive assistant.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. On Friday, I attended our fact-finding hearings in Windsor. We travelled to Windsor, and at that time we heard from some ambulance attendants. They told us a number of things that were very interesting and raised some serious concerns on our part.

They said that people living in small and rural communities should be frightened by your mega-week announcements, especially seniors, who place a heavy reliance on the health care system. They said that downloading ambulance services was going to lead to different standards of health care based on the ability and the willingness of the local community to meet those needs. They said that we're going to create a fragmented system that's going to increase -- this is very important -- ambulance response times, and it could very well cost lives.

Minister, I want you to explain to the House now why it is that downloading ambulance services on to municipalities is good for the health care system.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I will indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that the ambulance system I'm most familiar with, of course, is the ambulance system here in Metropolitan Toronto, and that system has been looked after by and has been the responsibility of the municipality for some considerable period of time.

The municipality has tailored that system here in Metropolitan Toronto and has made it work. The municipality took a system that many years ago was inadequate and tailored it to the needs of the people of Metropolitan Toronto and made it into an excellent ambulance system with probably the best response time of any ambulance system in Ontario, I would venture to guess.

It's our view that municipalities across Ontario will do the same thing, that municipalities place a very high significance and priority on ambulance services and on health care services and will develop excellent ambulance systems for their communities.

Mr McGuinty: Just so the minister understands who is paying for what right now, at present the province funds ambulance systems in this province to the tune of $300 million. Municipalities pitch in $35 million. The minister should also know that David Crombie, the man who came up with the recommendations, recommended against downloading ambulance services on to the municipalities. In fact, what he recommended was that the province assume complete responsibility for all ambulance services throughout the province.

Let me tell you what else the ambulance attendants said. They said that your dumping is going to lead to an Americanization of our ambulance system. They said that patients could very well be forced to pay for every bandage and every splint used. They said that in the States, ambulances are like taxis: You pay according to how long you're in the darned things and the distance you travel. They told us that the average American ambulance ride costs $700. Do you share the concerns of those ambulance attendants? Do you share those concerns?

Hon David Johnson: I share a number of the concerns of many people in the province of Ontario for health care. Health care is the number one priority of this government in terms of services.

I will indicate to the member opposite that I'm informed that Manitoba and Alberta, for example, are two other provinces wherein the municipalities run the land ambulance services, and that's what we're talking about, the land ambulance services. The province of Ontario will retain air ambulance.

Basically, this process will do a number of things: It will take the education tax, the huge, $5.4-billion, growing to $6.4-billion, cost of education off the residential property taxpayer.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. That's way out of order. I ask the member for Ottawa Centre to withdraw.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I withdraw.

Hon David Johnson: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. It will take that huge cost, that enormous cost of education off the property taxpayer, and at the same time some services such as the land ambulance service are being shifted to municipalities. I am fully confident that those municipalities will have the financial wherewithal and the extreme interest to create excellent services for their communities.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to ask another question of the minister. I'm going to ask him this time to speak to me as the Minister of Health, someone who is genuinely concerned about the delivery of quality health care in the province and not about juggling responsibilities from the province to the municipalities with a view to extracting another billion dollars. Let's talk now like the Minister of Health.

I am particularly concerned about the impact of the mega-week policies on seniors. Long-term care, ambulance care, social housing and property tax increases are all going to hit seniors hardest, and all this as you close hospitals and slash an additional $435 million from their budgets.

Minister, you're creating a fragmented system. Everybody who has any real understanding of this issue knows we've got to integrate, not disintegrate. Transferring ambulance services to municipalities, contrary to Crombie's recommendation, is a process leading us towards disintegration.

Ambulance service is not a big-ticket item. It makes sense that it stay in provincial control at least in small rural communities. I'm going to ask you again: Will you keep it at least in the case of small rural communities --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mr Johnson: The province of Ontario will continue to set the service standards and the copayment rates for land ambulance services. I am confident that municipalities, when they're freed and when their seniors -- I can tell you, if there is one issue the seniors have talked to me about over the years, it's about the cost of education on their residential property taxes. That has been the major concern.

The Liberals said they'd reduce the cost of education on the property tax for seniors. The NDP said they would reduce the cost of education on the property tax for seniors. What did they do? They both increased the cost on the property tax for seniors. This government, finally, has taken the cost of education off the property tax for seniors.

We have committed in health care $17.4 billion. The Liberals said they'd be satisfied with $17 billion in health care; we said no, at least $17.4 billion for health care, for long-term care, for chronic care, for all the services needed by the people in Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: What seniors want to know is that the services they need are going to be there for them when they need them.

The Speaker: I need to know who the question is to.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In your 1996-97 budget you announced $65 million in spending initiatives for Ontario children. Of that total, only $5 million has been spent. That means there are 60 million -- I wonder, Mr Speaker, if I might have the attention of the minister.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I think she knows.

Mr McGuinty: That means there are 60 million unspent dollars which had been promised by this government would be spent on children in Ontario, needy children in particular. Of the four programs announced, only one, the breakfast program -- the least expensive one -- has been delivered on. That promise has been delivered on. There are three other programs which remain outstanding: One was going to address the problem of low-birthweight babies being born in Ontario today; one was going to deal with the huge number of children -- there are 5,000 in Peel alone -- who are waiting for speech pathology treatment; and then there was going to be the issue of child care.

Minister, I'm not asking you for new money. I'm simply asking you to deliver on a promise you made to Ontario kids. Will you do that?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The honourable member across the way has certainly pointed out the importance of these three programs. That's why we made the budget commitments that we made, and we intend to live up to those budget commitments. As the Premier expressed late last week, we wish we could have moved faster on it. We have not been able to do that, but it remains a priority, and we are continuing to move on this because they are very important programs that we intend to deliver on.

Mr McGuinty: That response lends no comfort whatsoever to Ontario children who are in need right now. You made the promise nearly a year ago and you've delivered on less than 5% of it.

Let me tell you about the Mays. We raised the question of the Mays in this House some two months ago. We talked to you about the Mays, a young couple who had a son by the name of Adam. He's two and a half years of age, and they have spent some 16 months trying to get a speech pathologist for their son. Adam was not saying the kinds of things, the words he ought to have been saying at his age. His parents have been told it's going to take a year before they can get a speech pathologist to help them with Adam.

Minister, I'm going to ask you again. Your government made a promise to Ontario children. Why don't you deliver on those programs? The money has been allocated. You've got 60 days left before time is up on this. What are you going to do and how are you going to spend it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We've made a commitment; we intend to deliver on it. Unlike other governments, that money is not going to miraculously disappear into some other pot at the end of the fiscal year. Our commitments stand.

I'll forgive the honourable member if he doesn't understand that in some cases we've had to work with the communities to try and allocate some of this funding; for example, through the district health councils on the speech-language pathologists. I think if we were not to have done that, we would not be doing our job properly, because we need that community input into the making of these decisions. Our commitments stand.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I've said this in this House before. The darnedest thing about kids is that they don't put together convoys of buses and circle Queen's Park, they don't write us, they don't phone us, they don't retain lobbyists to advance their cause in the House, so we all have a special obligation but the government especially has a special obligation to look out for Ontario kids.

Let's talk, just for a moment, about the problem of low-birthweight babies being born in Ontario. The minister will understand very well that those children are, from the outset, behind the eight ball in terms of their health care prospects for the rest of their lives. Part of your money was going to be dedicated to addressing this issue.

I'm going to ask you one more time, Minister: Either admit that you don't intend to keep the promise you made to Ontario kids -- and forget about municipalities and other agencies that are involved with this; you made the promise to them -- either admit that you're not going to deliver on that promise or promise right now and tell us how you're going to spend the $60 million that you promised would be spent between now and the end of two months from now.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We of course have a commitment to children. We believe it is a special obligation. Perhaps the honourable member believes that he needs children to -- he's saying that children don't get on the phone and therefore they're not heard. Maybe that's what it would have taken for his government. That's certainly not what it takes for our government.

One of the things we are doing is working with Ottawa and the other provinces on bringing in an integrated child benefit. There's been some remarkable progress on that particular initiative. It's an extremely important initiative. That's one thing we are doing. We are working with our municipal partners and the child care community to ensure that child care support will be there for those families that need it.

One of the improvements we've made is that it is going to be a mandatory program for those municipalities. We are working with the district health councils on the speech-language pathology support because that is very important as well.

We are going to deliver on the low-birthweight Healthy Babies initiative because we recognize that investing money at that low end, at young children, is very important. Much of the $15 million we put out earlier this month is going into --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question; third party.

CHILD CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the same minister and follows along the same lines. This government makes a lot of announcements about children but then the money doesn't appear. We know that in three of the four programs you announced last spring in the budget, no money has been allocated, but the really glaring problem is in child care. The finance minister said in the speech, "[W]e will increase the province's support for child care, bringing it to the highest level in the history of the province," and you talked about an additional $40 million for child care.

But we've called around to municipalities and we've asked child care groups if any of them have been able to access this $40 million, and what do we find? We find that you've set up a series of catch-22s. Can you explain to people across this province how it is that thousands of child care spaces have disappeared in this province over the last year, yet this $40 million you promised is still sitting there and none of it has been allocated? Can you explain that?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): If there are thousands of child care spaces disappearing across this province, it is not because of the actions of this government. One of the problems we are hoping to fix through the Who Does What initiatives is those municipalities who are not picking up on child care support. There are millions of dollars of provincial money we are prepared to invest in child care for fee subsidies and municipalities have not picked up on those subsidies. Therefore, they've had people in their communities --

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): How much Jobs Ontario Training money did you cut, Janet? Come on.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What happened to the Jobs Ontario programs you cut?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The opposition mentions the Jobs Ontario spaces. Perhaps if they had planned those Jobs Ontario spaces as a sustainable program, there wouldn't have been any challenges or difficulties when we took over as the government.

I repeat, we have child care subsidy money on the table and municipalities have not picked all of it up. That is why, as we go through the Who Does What initiative, we believe we will be able to work with those municipalities to increase those very important employment supports --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): When a government tells different stories to different people depending on who it is speaking to, it will eventually catch up to it, and it's catching up to you. I have asked you about this $40 million time and time again in this House and you've said, "and we have set out the $600 million; we've put forward proposals on how that $600 million is proposed to be spent" -- meaning your child care reform proposals -- "We are now consulting on those proposals before we make decisions." That's Hansard, October 8.

Last week you told the media that the $40 million was still there if municipalities wanted to apply for it. Your Premier went a step further and he blamed municipalities for not picking up that $40 million and that's why it remained unspent; it wasn't your government's fault. You froze that.

The truth of the matter is even worse. There are up to 9,000 spaces that municipalities have cut because of downloading and cuts in transfers and the pressures on them. That means you're going to actually spend less this year than the previous government spent, not more. That's a cut to child care. Will you admit that when we see the actual spending for 1996-97, it will show fewer spaces and less money spent on child care?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have always been very clear that up to $600 million is available in this province for child care, that the new money we set forward for child care would be spent, pending the decisions that came out of the child care review and pending the decisions that came out of the Who Does What exercise. We clearly telegraphed that in the report, that there were those two processes that were going on and that those decisions on the new money would be allocated subject to the conclusions of both those processes.

In addition to that money is the money the province has on the table for fee subsidies, which municipalities have not picked up on. That is not a new problem. I remind the honourable member that this was something her government experienced as well. That is one of the reasons we have acknowledged very clearly that child care support in this province needs work to make sure that it is there, so that there is not unused money on the table when there are lineups in some communities for fee subsidies.

Ms Lankin: Minister, you just confirmed, then, that your Premier's statements were not factual when he blamed municipalities for not picking up that $40 million and saying it wasn't your government's fault. That runs absolutely contradictory to what you just said, which was that money wouldn't be available until after Who Does What and child care reform proposals were decided on, absolutely contradictory. Admit he was wrong.

Let me take it a step further. You've also admitted that municipalities are not picking up on the money that's there. Why? They don't have the room in their budgets. As we speak, given that you've downloaded 50% of the costs coming up, given that they know their costs are going to be exploding with all the downloading, they are making decisions on their 1997 budgets right now and I'm telling you I know from calls across this province they are looking at cutting child care spaces and child care funding so they don't have the burden when you make it mandatory in 1998.

What are you going to do today to make sure we do not lose dollars or any regulated child care spaces in 1997? How do you make it mandatory today, Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I would like to be very clear: There is no disagreement, there is no inconsistent message here, and no, we are not blaming municipalities. I am simply stating what has been a fact during this government's life and during the life of the government opposite, when it was in place. One of the things we are very conscious of is the financial situation of municipalities. That's why we have removed education off the property tax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much. That is also one of the reasons why we have something like $2.5 billion worth of assistance for municipalities to ensure that they do not run into any difficulties in meeting their obligations.

Finally, when we move forward through the Who Does What exercise --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order. Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The honourable member asks a very important question about how we will be proceeding with calculating child care services. I recognize that municipalities are looking at their budgets, looking at what they think will be happening in the future, but we are saying to them that the number of spaces, the current system that is in existence now, is the system upon which we are planning.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is to the minister of Municipal Affairs. I would just say to the Comsoc minister that I think we heard today the government's next spin strategy: When child care isn't available, it's the fault of municipalities; when ambulances don't work, it's the fault of municipalities; when libraries aren't open, it's the fault of municipalities.

Minister of Municipal Affairs, in response to a question from my colleague the member for Dovercourt on the megacity hearings you said, "If they want to have the committee move around Metropolitan Toronto, I certainly wouldn't have any objections to that," yet today your members on the committee voted not to move around the city of Metropolitan Toronto to hear people.

My question to you is, will you tell your colleagues on the committee that they're wrong? Will you tell your colleagues on the committee that you believe they should be moving around Metro Toronto to hear people so that all people in Metro Toronto can be heard?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I concur with the decision that was made by the standing committee this morning that the most appropriate location to hold the hearings is here. If people want to express their views, if people want to demonstrate, there's room at Queen's Park for 8,000, 10,000 maybe even 200,000 people to protest. It depends on who does the counting, mind you.

The House is in session. The committee is here. The members have to be in the House. All the Hansard material is here. The most appropriate place to carry out these hearings is right here in this place.

Mr Hampton: Another flip-flop by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. By the way, Minister, we understand why you don't want to go to the city of Scarborough or the city of North York: because we know and you know that thousands of people will be at those meetings and thousands of people will come out to tell you that you're wrong, and you don't want to hear them.

Your committee also voted essentially today to not let all the people who want to address the committee appear before it. You've already got more than 1,200 people who want to appear before the committee, yet the time you have given it would only allow fewer than 600 to be heard. With today's decision you're essentially saying to people that you really don't want to hear from them on the megacity proposal, that you don't want to hear their opposition.

Minister, in order that democracy can truly be served, in order that people can be heard, will you tell your government colleagues on that committee to reverse their decision so that all the people who want to express their opposition to your megacity proposal will indeed be heard? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Leach: To the leader of the third party, there have been more hours set aside for this committee -- 105 hours far exceeds the hours that have been set for almost any other committee that this Legislature has heard.

As for travelling around, I think it's important that people have the opportunity to be heard. I don't think it matters where they're heard. If it's here, they have access to it.

What we're interested in is ensuring that everybody has an opportunity to express their views. Now, if you wanted to line up a thousand people and they all gave the same answer, I don't think that accomplishes very much. Obviously, the supporters of the proposal could come in and make the same statement over and over again. What we want to do is make sure that the views of all the groups and all the individuals are heard, and we intend to do that.

Mr Hampton: What is very clear is that this minister is making a sham out of these hearings, and they've only just begun. He doesn't want to go outside this building to hear people, and frankly he doesn't even want to hear over half the people who have already submitted their names. So you're making a sham of it before it's even begun.

Minister, there are many, many people who are appearing. One of the people who is going to appear at 3:30 this afternoon is Jane Jacobs, who has been described as the most important thinker on urban issues in this century. She's going to be before the committee. Among other things, she's authored the book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. She doesn't agree with you on your megacity concept. Would you at least go listen to her? Would you at least listen to her concerns about what you're doing with this megacity issue?

Hon Mr Leach: I know I'll be able to hear Jane Jacobs. It is on television, it is taped, and I'll make sure that I hear the comments she makes. My

schedule after question period today doesn't allow me to be in personal attendance, but I assure the member opposite that I will read her comments, I will view the tape and make sure that we are aware of what she's saying.

He points out a couple of people who are opposed. He should have been there this morning to hear Alan Tonks say that he's in favour of amalgamation.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is to the Minister of Health. On Friday, you had some media conferences in places like Mississauga and Shelburne and you tried to make people believe that somehow hospital patients were getting more money. At the very same time, while you were out there standing with your signs and your props, your ministry was sending a different message, a depressing message, to hospital administrators across the province telling them that you are cutting $435 million.

Minister, you are taking away $70 million more than last year. It's the largest cut to take place to hospitals in this province ever, seven times as much as you pretend to be putting back in. The cynical misdirection that you're doing in this announcement has never been seen before.

When you look at sending 84% of that money to Tory ridings, when you look at trying to contrast that when last year you had $25 million in so-called reinvestment that came out of the base funding, the same money for hospitals, Minister, tell us today that you'll stop deceiving the public, that the $435 million that has been hacked and slashed from front-line services -- it's coming out next year -- tell us what is your precise allocation --

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

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I would like to know where the deception is in terms of this government announcing over the past year since it's been in office an investment of $25 million in dialysis; an investment of some $18 million in cardiac care; an investment in restructuring of over $100 million today and many, many more dollars coming; an investment in cancer care of some $42 million; an investment in the Trillium drug program; an investment in long-term care in our communities in the province of Ontario of $170 million.

And on and on it goes in addition to the announcements I made last Friday in Mississauga, in Shelburne and in Owen Sound.

These investments total over $600 million in health care by this government. This government has put health care as its number one priority.

Mr Kennedy: The only number one priority for this government is to privatize health care, is to bring in a two-tier system. There has been almost a billion dollars cut, and there's another 7% going to be cut next year, over $500 million. This government is introducing a system of chaos.

The Ontario Hospital Association, which heretofore has supported some of the restructuring, has said what you're doing makes no sense. It makes no sense, these random announcements that have no connection to any kind of plan. It makes no sense to Eva either. Eva is a 92-year-old woman who spent seven days, courtesy of your cutbacks, in the Queensway emergency department waiting for a bed. We want to hear what you're going to say to Windsor, where they've found out that anomalies there mean they're getting 18% less funding per capita than anywhere else in the province, showing again that you don't have a plan.

There is no way that people can believe you're looking after the interests of the people in Lincoln, the people in Grimsby, the people who have to face hospital closures because of these arbitrary cutbacks you're doing.

Will you do one simple thing? Will you hold back on your cuts to hospitals until at least your restructuring commission starts to make public plans for the entire province? What you're creating is an unholy mess right now and --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: In an era where, as we all know, the federal Liberal government has cut back $2 billion in health care and social care to the province of Ontario, this government has a vision to put the patient first in the province. I might say that in terms of addressing our health care needs, Ontario is a little bit behind. In Winnipeg, for example, they've had a number of bed closures, yet there's increased access to surgery and more patients receiving care. We intend to have better services in Ontario and more people receiving care in the province of Ontario.

The member opposite indicates that I was in Shelburne. In Shelburne, two hospitals have got together and they now have one administration. Formerly they had two administrations and the money went to pay each administration. Now they have saved money. Hospitals across the province are looking at areas in which to save money which will not affect the patient. I endorse this, and now we are reinvesting the money back to what --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question; the member for Algoma.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training, who this morning had only his second meeting with the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in two years. Mr Manners, the president of OSSTF, asked a question of the minister, very straightforward: Will your government fund all necessary classroom expenditures and how much will you guarantee to invest in Ontario classrooms? It's a question that has been raised in this House a number of times.

The minister has an agenda, and that is to cut money going to Ontario classrooms as he amalgamates school boards. The KPMG study commissioned by the government to review cost savings said that the ministry is assuming that the costs of amalgamated boards will be managed without additional funding. So let me put Mr Manners's question in another way: Is it your government's intention that the new expenditure formula you are going to introduce for school boards will result in an overall reduction --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Algoma, thank you. Minister?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Algoma for the question. Yes, in fact I did have a chance to meet with Mr Manners this morning. Somewhat to my surprise he arrived this morning, but I was able to take some time off from a meeting I was engaged in at the time to have a discussion with him.

We have a regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow afternoon to discussion some very important issues, because I think it is important that those of us in the education community, with the OSSTF and other organizations, talk about some of the critical issues before us, including finding a way to have better methods of resolving bargaining issues than the method we had to use here on Thursday. We have a regularly scheduled meeting, and I'll be pleased to attend that meeting.

I asked Mr Manners this morning if we could engage in a dialogue, if we could talk about some of the critical issues before education as we move to fulfil our agenda, and that is to have an equal opportunity for a high-quality education for every student in the province and to lift student achievement from the level of mediocrity it's at now to something that's higher than the average in Canada.

Specifically to the question, we have made a commitment, and we intend to be held to account for that, that we will provide the funding for --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Wildman: In the KPMG review it says that the government will be able to take $10 million out of classroom supplies and equipment. That should be great comfort to parents like Diana McGill of Cobourg. Her son is in grade 8, where there is a table used by a number of students because there aren't enough desks. She also says there aren't enough textbooks in the classroom, so the students have to share the books and they can't take them home.

KPMG also suggested you could cut $1.3 million from instruction supports, that is, the people who provide teachers' aides for students with special needs. The Northumberland and Clarington Board of Education has increased the teacher-pupil ratio for education assistance from 1 to 20 to 1 to 27.

Minister, you keep saying you want to take Ontario's students to the head of the class. Exactly how do you intend to get them there when you're cutting the ground out from beneath them?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, the consultant's report on our changes to the governance structure indicated that we can expect a saving of about $150 million from a reduced bureaucracy, money that will be available either to spend in the classroom or return to the taxpayers, as the case may be.

In direct answer to your question, yes, there were some small amounts identified in terms of collaboratively purchasing supplies for the classroom; some savings that might happen because we have coterminous boards under our new model. But the bulk of the savings identified by the consultant was from reducing the number of politicians in our education system from 1,900 to 700. Once again, that was the bulk of the savings. Those costs can now be directed to the classroom, can now be directed to achieving better results by each individual student across the province. That is the agenda of this government, that is what we're doing and that is why we are changing our system of education.

HIGHWAY FINANCING

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation concerning a national highway system.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Niagara South can ask any minister he likes. I appreciate the fact you want to give him direction and I'm surprised he doesn't take it too, but I will let him ask the minister.

Mr Hudak: As the minister is well aware, an efficient and well-maintained national highway system is very important for the economic wellbeing of this province as well as the rest of the nation. Not too long ago I brought forth a private member's resolution, with the support of this House, to ask the government for a fair commitment to a national highway program.

We heard here today how on a typical day in this province vehicles travel 200 million kilometres on Ontario's highways, and that's equivalent to about 5,000 trips around the world. In Niagara that means the QEW, the 400 series highways and indeed Highway 3 through Port Colborne are in need of some work.

Can the minister tell the House what initiatives his ministry has taken to ensure a fair share of any federal funding for highways, including a national highways policy?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank the member for Niagara South for the question and also for his ongoing support of this issue. It has been greatly appreciated.

On October 7, 1996, the member for Niagara South and I appeared before the House of Commons standing committee on transportation, where my submission recommended that the federal government should establish a national highway investment program to support a national highway system, which is very critical for further growth of Canada's trade and tourism.

I strongly urged the federal government that Ontario should receive a fair share of such a program. Since our major highways are among the most heavily used for trade and tourism, our motorists contribute over $2 billion a year to the federal coffers. For some reason the federal government refuses to give us one dollar -- your pals.

Mr Hudak: I know that the minister has campaigned very strongly for a federal share of the national highway program. I've been at his side on many occasions. The United States has an excellent national highway program. Mexico, I think, is investing $7 billion or $8 billion in its own national highway program.

Ontario needs the federal government to finally recognize the long-term economic benefits of a national highways policy. Minister, can you inform the House today of any federal reaction to our appearance before the standing committee in October?

Hon Mr Palladini: I'm pleased to inform the House, and I think the members of the opposition would like to hear, that at least we are making some headway. We have received a discussion paper from the standing committee as of December 17, 1996. The paper is entitled "The Renewal of the National Highway System" and clearly indicates a need for federal funding. The discussion paper also outlines a number of possible considerations for funding our national highway system.

Furthermore, a round table discussion for stakeholders has taken place in Ottawa and we are going to know what kind of role public-private partnerships can undertake in funding highway infrastructure of national importance. The results of that discussion will be shared with ministry staff and I look forward to sharing it with this House.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education.

Minister, you're rather given these days to using fine words about fair funding for every student, but I guess I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding what is fair about funding that deprives students of access to junior kindergarten in some 25 boards across the province; and I'm having some difficulty seeing what's fair about funding that leaves 40 students in a classroom or forces teachers to give students textbooks that are held together by elastics or leaves three kids to a seat in a school bus; and I certainly don't see what's fair about funding that takes away the support that special education kids need to be able to learn.

Those are just some of the realities that have been forced on our classrooms because of the cuts you made to education last year. Do you agree that fair funding starts with a commitment to stop any further cuts?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member opposite for the question. Let me be very clear about this.

Class sizes that are negotiated in collective agreements that increase class size; special education reductions of any kind, particularly when there have not been any special education grant reductions in this province; junior kindergarten programs which the province funds the same way it funds other school board programs: Some of these local decisions that have been made over the course of the last year, some of them made in response to the social contract, are the very reason this government has moved decisively to change our governance structure for education and to make sure our funding formula is fair for each and every student.

That's why this government has taken the responsibility for funding education off the property taxes and taken that burden on as a provincial government. We believe we must quantify the costs of a high-quality education and meet that cost in every individual circumstance right across the province.

Mrs McLeod: What concerns everybody who cares about education, about what happens to kids in a classroom, is that the only reason this government has taken education off the property tax is to get control of education funding so it can find big money to pay for the tax cut. That's what's worrying everybody. We know we have a Minister of Education who has repeatedly said that he thinks we already spend too much on education, who's repeatedly denied what the impact is on kids in classrooms of the cuts that have already been made.

We know you want to help out the Premier and the Minister of Finance by finding another $1 billion to help pay for that tax cut, but surely now that you are going to take responsibility for all the program cuts that have to be made, you will understand that funding isn't fair for any student if it's going to mean larger classes and fewer resources and less support for kids.

Minister, if you really believe in fair funding for students, will you say loudly and clearly that there will be no further cuts? Will you make a commitment today that the spending, the funding for education will remain at least at the level it is today?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's clarify this for the member opposite, and perhaps once and for all the member opposite can get the message on this file. First of all, we are very interested in having funds that impact the quality of education for children. We believe that $150 million less spent on bureaucracy and trustees might help that.

Also, a note about your earlier statement about who cares about the classroom, about kids in the classroom: We have a system of education in Ontario right now that was left to us by your government and by the previous government where the students of Ontario -- I think the member should listen to this -- are achieving at less than the average rate in terms of their scholastic abilities of other students in other provinces who have already taken on these changes.

That's why this government is moving, and moving quickly, to make the changes so that we can improve student achievement, so we can have meaningful standards in the classroom. My only regret is that your government hadn't moved to make education better for the kids in the classroom some years ago so we wouldn't be behind the other provinces, so we in fact could be ahead of them.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. On Friday I attended a news conference with environmentalists as well as city councillor Peter Tabuns and Metro councillor Jack Layton. They believe your government is breaking the law because the megacity bill has not been placed on the environmental registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights. Even worse, there will be no environmental assessment of the impact there will be on our natural and social environment as this government rams its megacity legislation through in a matter of weeks.

There is real concern that a lot of the innovative municipal environmental programs will go down the tubes. Why aren't you speaking up on this issue? Can't you at least enforce the law and try to prevent your government's mega-destruction of our environment?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): There are several issues involved in the question and I want to thank the member for the opportunity to clarify them.

The environmental assessment process relates to undertakings. It does not relate to legislation which is in front of this Legislature. I think it would be highly unusual for us as legislators to say that some other group had a greater power than the members who are elected to this body to decide on whether a law should be passed or not be passed.

The second issue relates to the environmental registry. With regard to that particular legislation, it is the choice of each minister as to whether they put their particular piece of legislation on that registry or they do not. The decision by the minister is related to what is the content of that bill. Bills which are primarily administrative or which deal with tax matters or financial matters are not normally put on the particular registry. I would characterize this bill as being that. Notwithstanding that, this would be a choice of the Minister of Housing.

Ms Churley: Minister, the Environmental Commissioner has already slapped the wrists of your government at least twice now. I don't know if she said you'd actually broken the law, but even the auditor has complained that too many things are being done behind closed doors in secret. You've already been warned about this, and here you go again perhaps breaking the law. At the very least, this should have been posted on the registry.

Once again you are not standing up for the environment. You are not paying any attention to the massive negative impacts that this massive megacity bill could have on the environment. Your ministry has cut over 750 jobs, has laid off a third or more of the staff, with we believe more to come. Why won't you at least, instead of standing up and defending your Premier and the other ministers again today, stand up for the environment and say that you insist on this going on the registry and that some kind of environmental assessment happen? Because it will affect the environment.

Hon Mr Sterling: It's nice to stand here and grandstand about standing up for the environment and that you're a great protector of the environment, but I must follow the laws of the country and, as they are written, the laws of this particular province. The law relating to the environmental registry requires ministers to follow that law in spirit with that law.

I have consulted with my legal representatives and legal counsel in my particular ministry, and they said it would be quite wrong to put this particular piece of legislation on the environmental registry. But as I said, this was a choice of the Minister of Housing and I'll refer the question to him to allow him to make his particular defence.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can't answer a question and then refer it. You either answer it or refer it; you can't do both. New question.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): My question is for the Solicitor General.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): How are your hospitals in Cambridge doing?

Mr Martiniuk: Very nicely, thank you.

As you know, I represent the people of Cambridge. Great numbers of our residents commute at least 100 kilometres every day using the 401. I want to ask the minister if he's aware of the latest CRASH survey which asked 2,000 actual commuters in my area what they thought was the best way to make highways safer.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I just happen to have a copy in my hand. This is Commuters to Reduce Accidents for Safer Highways, a 1996 question-and-answer survey of 1,869 Highway 401 commuters in the Cambridge OPP detachment area. This was put together with the good work of the folks in the community in that area and the OPP.

The survey found that 89% of the commuters questioned indicated that photo-radar did not improve the safety of their commute. They had two suggestions on ways to increase safety on our highways: Number one was to increase police visibility on the highways and number two was to target aggressive drivers, two policies which this government is actively pursuing.

Mr Martiniuk: I'm pleased to hear the government is listening to the concerns and suggestions of commuters about ways of improving safety.

I'd like to ask the Solicitor General what actions are being taken to increase police visibility and target aggressive driving.

Hon Mr Runciman: As an observer of this government would know, road safety is a top priority, and we've undertaken a number of initiatives with respect to highway safety in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation.

The OPP has established eight Highway Ranger units throughout the province, 116 full-time Rangers whose job effectively is to target aggressive drivers. In the very near future we will be starting up another Highway Ranger unit in the northeastern region of the province.

We announced a number of months ago the All Hands on Deck initiative, where we have experienced OPP officers, regardless of rank, out on the highways in the greater Toronto region during peak traffic hours, thereby increasing visibility of police cruisers on our highways.

The proof is in the pudding: There were 13% fewer highway traffic deaths in the first half of 1996. Clearly it is working and we're confident it will continue to do so.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to announce, if the members would recognize in the members' gallery is a gentleman who was first elected to this House in a 1948 by-election, Mr Al Johnston, who represented Parry Sound for 24 years. Welcome.

COMMENTS OF MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It has to do with the report of the Honourable Gregory Evans, the Integrity Commissioner, dated today.

The commissioner investigated the comments the minister made and said that in investigating the comments, he was drawn to what he calls the fourth principle in the

preamble to the act that states, "Members are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest public scrutiny."

The Integrity Commissioner then went on to review the remarks that you made and has analysed them relative to that

preamble, "Members are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest public scrutiny."

The commissioner then goes on to say about the comments you made, Minister, "In my opinion, such comments were inappropriate, and do not reflect a proper appreciation of the

preamble," in other words, that you did not act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest public scrutiny.

Are you prepared today to apologize and to admit that you made a mistake?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I happen to have a copy of the commissioner's findings here and I'd like to read it into the record:

"Finding:

"On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Honourable Allan Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, did not violate

section 4 of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, either personally or as a result of the activities of his executive assistant, John Matheson, for which he accepted responsibility."

I think that answers the question.

Mr Phillips: That actually doesn't answer the question at all, Minister. It is clear that the Integrity Commissioner looked at the comments you made. He deliberately reviewed the

preamble, "Members are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny"; he reviewed the remarks that you made about your organization phoning a law firm and complaining about a case that they were proceeding with against the government; and he said, "Any such communication, while it may seem innocuous to the minister, may be viewed otherwise by the recipient of the inquiry." This is an extremely important charge he makes against you, a bully charge.

The Integrity Commissioner says, "In my opinion, such comments were inappropriate and do not reflect a proper appreciation of the

preamble." He is saying directly to you that you did not act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest public scrutiny. I give you another chance today. Are you prepared today now to apologize and admit you were wrong and the Integrity Commissioner was right?

Hon Mr Leach: Obviously the member opposite didn't hear me when I read him the findings of the report, the conclusions. That means the end. This is what he rules. Perhaps you might understand that. The findings are:

"On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Honourable Allan Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, did not" -- that's n-o-t -- "violate

section 4 of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, either personally or as a result of the activities of his executive assistant...for which he accepted responsibility."

I don't know what could be more clear than that. I just can't understand where that member is coming from. Read the conclusion.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question to the same minister on the same issue. I have the report in front of me as well and I would say to the minister that his arrogance seems to know no bounds. If you had read all of the text before you -- the commissioner works under certain guidelines. At the end of the day, he said that you did not contravene the Members' Integrity Act. What he does say is that certain comments of yours were inappropriate. He goes on to say in another place that certain actions prevented the parents in my riding from getting the information they wanted.

This is a very serious comment from the commissioner. You have been given the opportunity today to apologize. I would ask you again to do so. I am sure that the members of my community who were involved in this would like to hear that apology from you.

Hon Mr Leach: Maybe that member was too far away to have heard my response, but to pick bits and pieces out of a report, to me, is totally inappropriate. What the commissioner, the Honourable Gregory Evans, clearly states in his findings is, "On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that" there was no breach. I'm prepared to put it in again; I'll put it in again when the supplementary comes.

Ms Churley: Let me read something into the record here from the same report:

"The reasonable inference to be drawn from the above comments is that is not inappropriate for a minister of the crown or his political staff to communicate with the law firm which is in the process of litigating with his ministry, to ascertain whether that law firm is `serious' about proceeding with the litigation. Any such communication, while it may seem innocuous to the minister, may be viewed otherwise by the recipient of the inquiry.

"In my opinion, such comments were inappropriate and do not reflect a proper appreciation of the

preamble."

That is pretty clear. I ask you again, could you apologize to my constituent?

Hon Mr Leach: Again in response, just to make sure that it's there in response to every one of these questions, I am going to repeat the findings of the commissioner, the Honourable Gregory T. Evans, dated at the city of Toronto in the province of Ontario on this third day of February, 1997:

"Finding: On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the Honourable Allan Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, did not violate

section 4 of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, either personally or as a result of the activities of his executive assistant, John Matheson, for which he accepted responsibility."

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that Mr Guzzo and Mr Bartolucci exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business and that the House will commence at 11 am on Thursday, February 6, to discuss ballot item 61 only.

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

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I have affixed my signature.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll just wait for a minute. There's too much noise.

WORKFARE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from a number of people from the city of Timmins or Porcupine that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced the workfare program; and

"Whereas the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario increased by 57,000 in the month of September, giving a clear indication that there is a need for job creation; and

"Whereas the majority of welfare recipients do want to work and there is no evidence that workfare will create permanent jobs; and

"Whereas we believe workfare will eliminate permanent jobs;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its workfare program and concentrate on job creation."

I affix my name to that petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party committed in the Common Sense Revolution to fully protect health care spending; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris Conservatives have managed to fully protect health care spending, even as the federal Liberal government has slashed health and social transfer payments to Ontario by $2.1 billion; and

"Whereas notwithstanding the reduction of health care by the federal Liberal government, the Ontario Conservative government has pledged not to let annual health care spending fall below the $17.4-billion level it was when they took office; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government of Ontario has added another $300 million to the health care budget, increasing it to $17.7 billion;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Parliament of Ontario to demand the federal Liberal government fulfil its responsibility under the Canada Health Act to the patients and taxpayers of Ontario by adequately funding health care."

I support this petition and I have so signed it.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is in response to Bill 84. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the firefighters of Sudbury and Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation; and

"Whereas we are concerned and we don't want to be burned by Bill 84;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Solicitor General to rewrite Bill 84 before being enacted into law only after extensive public hearings across Ontario."

Of course I affix my name to it as I agree with it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is attacking workers' compensation benefits and the rights of injured workers;

"Whereas Tory plans include taking $15 billion from injured workers and giving $6 billion to employers, including the government's rich corporate friends;

"Whereas Cam Jackson, the former Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for gutting the WCB, refused to hold public hearings, choosing to meet secretly with business and insurance industry representatives instead;

"Whereas the WCB has about $7.6 billion in assets and its unfunded liability has been steadily shrinking;

"Whereas the Jackson report and WCB legislation are just part of a coordinated attack on occupational health and safety protections for working families in Ontario;

"Whereas Tory plans also include abolition of the internationally respected Occupational Disease Panel;

"Whereas the government needs to hear the message that taking money from injured workers and lowering incentives for employers to make workplaces safer is not the way to make Ontario a better place to live;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold full, province-wide public hearings on WCB reform; to listen to the voice of the people calling for improved occupational health and safety protection; and to tell the Tory government to call off its attack on the dignity and standard of living of injured workers and their families."

This is signed by residents in the riding of Sudbury East. I agree with them and I have affixed my signature to it as well.

CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here from Ms Pat Norton of 192 Sutherland Drive addressed to the Ontario Legislature and it reads as follows:

"I request as a taxpayer and consumer that I be confirmed in the right to make and act upon my own choices with respect to medical and health therapies offered by all regulated health care professionals, particularly physicians, as long as I am not being harmed or at risk of appreciable harm.

"I request that the Legislature enact a choice in health care act to ensure that consumers and taxpayers will have meaningful choices and access to safe, effective and cost-effective health care that meets their needs and that this legislation be modelled upon acts of this type already in place in such jurisdictions as the province of Alberta and the states of Alaska, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington. In particular, this act should establish the authority of true peer review and the standard of patient outcome.

"I further request that the government of Ontario take immediate action to terminate the pattern of abusive actions of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which, contrary to their mandate and the public interest, attack and punish doctors simply because they employ complementary medical therapies. This the college does to the detriment of medicine, the welfare of patients, the rights of consumers, the interests of taxpayers and my personal needs."

OAKS DETOXIFICATION SERVICES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a very short but important petition to place before the Legislature of Ontario which reads:

"We, the citizens of Elliott Lake and the North Shore, are gravely concerned about the recommendation that the Oaks detox service may close. Please reconsider your decision and allow this vital service to continue."

This is signed by over 500 of my constituents. I have affixed my signature and I too hope the government will reconsider this.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is attacking workers' compensation benefits and the rights of injured workers;

"Whereas Tory plans include taking $15 billion from injured workers and giving $6 billion to employers, including the government's rich corporate friends; and

"Whereas Cam Jackson, the former Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for gutting the WCB, refused to hold public hearings, choosing to meet secretly with business and insurance industry representatives; and

"Whereas the WCB has about $7.6 billion in assets and its unfunded liability has been steadily shrinking; and

"Whereas the Jackson report and WCB legislation are just part of a coordinated attack on occupational health and safety protections for working families in Ontario; and" --

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I notice Mr Jackson is in the House and heckling as I'm trying to read this petition. I don't know why he would be. Everything in here is true.

"Whereas Tory plans also include abolition of the internationally respected Occupational Disease Panel"; -- let him deny that if he will -- "and

"Whereas the government needs to hear the message that taking money from injured workers and lowering incentives for employers to make workplaces safer is not the way to make Ontario a better place to live"; -- and Cam Jackson should know that --

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold full, province-wide public hearings on WCB reform; to listen to the voice of the people calling for improved occupational health and safety protection; and to tell the Tory government to call off its attack dogs on the dignity and standard of living of injured workers and their families."

I support this petition and I have signed my name to it. I hope the message will get through to Mr Cam Jackson.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions are not debates.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here with a number of signatures on it, including that of Mr Les Anthony, otherwise known as Mr East York. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, residents of East York, are in favour of the borough of East York remaining as a separate municipality."

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario.

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

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

"Whereas over 70% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

This petition has been signed by 498 Ontarians and I have affixed my name.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Niagara that reads as follows:

"To the government of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of $44 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in full agreement with its contents.

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition to the Legislature and to the Honourable Robert Runciman.

"We, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"Closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"Physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous costs;

"Treatment aimed at breaking that cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"As Mr Ross Virgo has stated, `the Ontario Correctional Institute is a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques';

"Research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"A therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison;

"Save victims and money by keeping what works open."

That's signed by a number of people who recognize the important service OCI provides; I support it.

RELEASE OF SEX OFFENDERS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have an important petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the Attorney General of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, all residents of Ontario, do respectfully request that:

"(1) convicted sex offenders not be released on bail pending an appeal;

"(2) community members be notified prior to the release of a sex offender into the community; and

"(3) communities be given the opportunity to have input into the conditions of bail, probation or parole when a sex offender is being released into the community."

This is an important issue in Algoma-Manitoulin and it's signed by over 500 people.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, CULTURE AND RECREATION), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES CIVIQUES, DE LA CULTURE ET DES LOISIRS

Mrs Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 114,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act and repealing the Parks Assistance Act / Projet de loi 114, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Affaires civiques et culturelles et en abrogeant la

Loi sur l'aide destinée à la création de parcs.

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

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

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF FINANCE), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DES FINANCES

Mr Tsubouchi, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance and by making complementary amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 115, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère des Finances et en apportant des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

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

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DE L'ALIMENTATION ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES

Mr Tsubouchi, on behalf of Mr Villeneuve, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs / Projet de loi 116, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 117,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, by repealing the Costs of Distress Act and by making complementary amendments to the Mortgages Act / Projet de loi 117, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de la Consommation et du Commerce, en abrogeant la

Loi sur les frais de saisie-gagerie et en apportant des modifications complémentaires à la

Loi sur les hypothèques.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF HEALTH), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ

Mr Tsubouchi, on behalf of Mr David Johnson, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 118,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Health, by amending other statutes in relation to statutes administered by the Ministry of Health and by enacting the Ministry of Health Appeal and Review Boards Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 118, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de la Santé et d'autres lois relativement à celles dont l'application relève de ce même ministère et en édictant la Loi de 1997 sur les commissions d'appel et de révision du ministère de la Santé.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

Mr Tsubouchi, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 119,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère des Richesses naturelles.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU NORD ET DES MINES

Mr Tsubouchi, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 120,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending the Mining Act / Projet de loi 120, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives au ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ÉNERGIE

Mr Tsubouchi, on behalf of Mr Sterling, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 121,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending the Ontario Energy Board Act and repealing the Ontario Energy Corporation Act / Projet de loi 121, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant la

Loi sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario et en abrogeant la

Loi sur la Société de l'énergie de l'Ontario.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL

Mr Tsubouchi, on behalf of Mr Harnick, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending certain statutes administered by or affecting the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Ministry of the Solicitor General and by making complementary amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère du Procureur général ou du ministère du Solliciteur général, ou qui le concerne, et en apportant des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In accordance with the standing orders, when the first bill was being presented for my colleague the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, you had asked for the vote and the member for Algoma indicated that the bill should be renamed to eliminate the entire ministry. I wondered if that was a motion that would be in order and that you recognized it or not.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I was just pointing out that if the government were being honest about what it was doing, it would be renaming the bill "the elimination of the ministry."

The Deputy Speaker: If you've listened attentively, there was no motion made. It was just introduction of bills.

OPPOSITION DAY

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I move opposition day motion number 2:

Whereas the Harris government is dumping over $6.4 billion in service costs to municipalities, including $2.7 billion in social assistance, $1.6 billion in public health and seniors long-term health care and $270 million in child care services; and

Whereas the transfer of these services will add over $1 billion in net new costs to property taxpayers; and

Whereas moving social services to the property tax base contradicts past municipal reform reviews including the 1991 Committee on the Provincial-Municipal Financial Relationship, the Ontario Fair Tax Commission, and the 1996 GTA task force report; and

Whereas Duncan Sinclair, the chair of the government's Health Services Restructuring Commission, said that dumping seniors' long-term health care on municipalities was "stupid" and "180 degrees out of phase with the (prevailing) philosophy"; and

Whereas the government's own Who Does What panel unanimously recommended against moving social services to the property tax base; and

Whereas the Metro board of trade and the GTA mayors oppose the government's plans to move social services to the property tax base because it will increase property taxes; and

Whereas the United Way and other service agencies say the government's reforms will reduce services or raise property taxes; and

Whereas the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has called the government scheme a "shell game" which will result in higher property taxes; and

Whereas David Crombie has said "The only way they (municipalities) can deal with any increasing (welfare) caseload or any long-term care is to either cut services or raise taxes. Which either means you're going to hit the poor or drive out business"; and

Whereas property taxes are considered one of the most regressive forms of taxation;

Therefore this House calls on the government to reconsider its decision to transfer over $6.4 billion in service costs to municipalities and work on developing alternatives which: (1) do not add extra costs to municipalities; (2) follow the principles of disentanglement in moving hard service costs to municipalities and soft service costs to the province; and (3) which are developed in true consultation with municipalities and agencies to ensure that local property taxes do not increase as the result of provincial downloading.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr McGuinty has moved official opposition day number 2.

Mr McGuinty: I've been looking forward for some time now to be able to address in a substantive way in this House some of the concerns that have been raised through the mega-week announcements. Clearly mega-week in Ontario has come and gone and tremendous change is about to be made to the way Ontario works, unprecedented change. The question of course that people are now asking is, is this change for the better or is it change for the worse?

No one could deny that there is a tremendous appetite for change today in Ontario. That's one of the things that I quickly learned as a result of travelling the province together with some of my other leadership campaign colleagues. If there was one thing that people impressed upon us, it was that there is a tremendous desire for change.

If you're somewhat confused by the Harris changes found within the mega-week announcements, I can tell you that you are not alone. The flurry of announcements was deliberately designed to confuse. I have described the television advertising campaign as the military equivalent of saturation bombing. We are being bombarded on a regular basis with television advertising which is going to cost us, taxpayers in Ontario, between some $2 million and $3 million to tell us that all is well in Camelot and things are only going to get better.

You've got the combination of the flurry, the pace at which that change was introduced in this House and the television ads in addition to that, and it makes it very, very difficult to keep your eye on the ball. Each of the very complex announcements could have been made a few weeks apart, giving people a chance to study them, digest them and argue the pros and cons publicly before they were finalized. But instead, as in too many other cases, the Harris government went too far, too fast.

When someone puts up a smokescreen designed to confuse us, it's natural to ask, "What are they trying to hide?" In this case, while the smokescreen is complex, the consequences are very, very clear. I want to tell Ontarians that it's important to keep their eye on the following ball: We are going to see higher property taxes, we are going to have fewer services and we're going to have more user fees. Those are going to be the three fundamental consequences of the mega-week announcements, notwithstanding what the government would have us believe.

The government won't tell you what impact these changes are going to have on municipalities or on taxpayers. Either they won't release that information or, even worse, they don't know what's going to happen once their mega-dumping is complete. Speaker, you will know that I have on several occasions in this House asked the Premier and the Minister of Finance for them to release the secret studies that they have done which would detail in a comprehensive way the impact that the mega-week announcements are going to have on each of Ontario's communities.

The government has that information but it is continuing to refuse to provide us with that information. The only logical conclusion that we can draw from that is that that information does not support the government's case and in fact supports ours, which again is simply that we are going to have higher property taxes, fewer services and more user fees.

In essence, what mega-week boiled down to is this: The province took over one area of funding -- education -- from municipalities. I might say that there has been a general consensus that that would be a good thing to do, but not, and I want to repeat this, but not at all costs. Taking education off the property taxes is a good thing because property taxes are a regressive system of taxation and there are people who are paying property taxes right now who cannot afford to do so for something like education.

The province took over education. On the face of it, it appeared to be good, but in return -- this is very important to understand -- it dumped a slew of new areas on the property taxpayers, including public health services, welfare, child care, long-term care for seniors, libraries, public housing, public transit and highways. Each of these new areas will now have to be paid for out of property taxes.

The Premier would have us believe that this is an even swap, but in reality, the province has taken over an area, education, that is easily predicted and quite readily controlled. In turn, it has dumped on to the property taxpayer areas that are either subject to wild swings, like welfare, or areas where there will be incredible growth down the road, such as long-term care for Ontario's seniors. It's sort of like Mike Harris saying: "Look, we're going to swap cars. You give me your 1997 model and I'll give you my 1982 model and we'll call it even." Guess who's going to have the higher maintenance costs.

Let's look at some of the key mega-announcements. It has long been argued that it would be more fair to pay for education out of the income tax system instead of through property taxes, as I just indicated. Unlike income tax, property tax is regressive because it doesn't take into account our ability to pay. Retired seniors on fixed incomes are often victims of a regressive property tax.

But Mike Harris is doing much more with education than just taking its cost off our property taxes. The Premier is taking control of education, and the elimination of so many school boards and trustees will make it easier to exercise his will as opposed to the will of school board trustees and parents.

Minister of Education John Snobelen claims he can take $1 billion more out of education, and that is $1 billion on top of the $400 million he has already squeezed out of education. Meanwhile, a host of social services will now have to be paid for by the property taxpayer. One key area is welfare, and as we all know, welfare costs can rise dramatically during a recession when there are mass layoffs. In the last recession welfare costs soared by over $1 billion.

Furthermore, we know that the single fastest-growing portion of our population is seniors. The question we've got to ask is, how will municipalities be able to pay for more long-term care for seniors, whether at home or in seniors' residences? There is clearly no magic solution to this. Taxpayers are going to have to pay for it through higher property taxes, cuts to other services, more user fees or a combination of all three.

The Minister of Finance has been given to telling us that taxpayers are somehow going to receive a 10% cut in their property taxes as a result of these changes. But he can't back that up with any credible numbers and he doesn't seem to have a clue about how taxes are going to break down on a regional basis.

Since the Conservatives will not provide this information, we have launched a fact-finding mission to determine exactly what is going to happen when Mike Harris and Al Leach have finished wreaking havoc on taxpayers throughout this province. I can tell you that we have already had meetings in Toronto, Hamilton, Sudbury and Windsor. Let me tell you about just some of what we've been hearing.

In Toronto, Paul Pagnuelo of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told us, "The government of Ontario is playing a shell game with taxpayers." That is a direct quote. The federation believes, as I do, that the mega-week announcements will result in increased business and residential taxes.

In Windsor, we heard from ambulance paramedics who are worried that dumping ambulance service on to municipalities could result in poor response times or privatization. I can tell you that when we heard from those ambulance attendants last Friday, one of the things that they were so proud of is that they had met those conditions which they were supposed to meet in order to obtain paramedic training.

There are paramedics in Hamilton, in Oshawa, in Toronto and in Ottawa, and they may very well be in other communities, but the concern that the ambulance attendants have today in Windsor is that the city of Windsor will not be able to afford to pay for their training as paramedics. What that means is that if you have a heart attack in Hamilton, Toronto, Oshawa or Ottawa, there is a better likelihood that you'd be able to get the necessary assistance on the ground, where you drop, in those centres than you would in Windsor. What we're talking about is two different levels of health care in Ontario communities, and clearly that is not acceptable.

Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Chair Terry Cooke told us that he thought putting welfare and other social services on to municipalities was unfair