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

September 26, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L099 - Thu 26 Sep 1996 / Jeu 26 Sep 1996

ELECTION OF SPEAKER

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

OBSTETRICAL CARE

WALK FOR AIDS

COMMUNITY AUTO THEFT REDUCTION

PREMIER'S VISIT

HOSPITAL SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

MUSKOKA AUTUMN STUDIO TOUR

VISITORS

ELECTION OF SPEAKER

ORAL QUESTIONS

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

OBSTETRICAL CARE

HEALTH BENEFIT ALLOWANCE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ST MARYS SCHOOL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

ABORTION

BEAR HUNTING

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

The House met at 1001.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): Members of the assembly, it is my duty to inform you of a vacancy in the office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario due to resignation. It is therefore my duty to call upon you to elect one of your numbers to preside over your deliberations as Speaker. Therefore, I ask for nominations for the office of Speaker.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I, Jim Bradley, move, seconded by Bud Wildman, that Ed Doyle, member for the electoral district of Wentworth East, do take the chair of the House as Speaker.

Clerk of the House: Is there a seconder for this motion?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I second the motion.

Clerk of the House: Does the member accept the nomination?

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I do; reluctantly, but I do.

Clerk of the House: Are there any further nominations?

I therefore declare Mr Ed Doyle, member for the electoral district of Wentworth East, elected as your Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): I just want to say this is an incredible honour and I thank you all. It will be short, but I will do my best. I really thank you very much. You're all so kind.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor entered the chamber and took his seat upon the throne.

Hon Henry N.R. Jackman (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly has elected me as their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me. If, in the performance of those duties, I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me and not to the assembly, whose servant I am.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I am commanded by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor to declare to you that he freely confides in the duty and attachment of the assembly to Her Majesty's person and government and is confident that the proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temperance and prudence.

Prayers.

Hon David Johnson: I move that this House now adjourn until 1:30 pm.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of this House that we adjourn until 1:30? Agreed.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, I'd like to welcome you to the chair.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Mr Agostino: Yesterday evening, the Hamilton District Injured Workers Group held a forum attended by about 200 injured workers. The forum invitation was issued to all six Hamilton area MPPs as well as the minister, the former minister in charge of the WCB and other government members. Unfortunately, the only two who chose to attend and speak to the injured workers were myself and the member for Hamilton Centre.

None of the four Tory members in the Hamilton area, the minister's office, the former minister involved or any of their parliamentary assistants saw fit to come and face the injured workers who are going to be affected by the draconian changes to the Workers' Compensation Act and health and safety across Ontario.

Many of these individuals were concerned about the benefits being cut; the deindexing of pensions for workers; the wait period, which has been changed; and the ongoing attack against injured workers by this government, day in and day out. These individuals last night were truly concerned and were looking for answers from the government members. Unfortunately, what we saw was an empty chair and no one from the government side of the House having the guts or the courage to face those injured workers.

I issue a challenge again to the local MPPs, the minister and the former minister: Next time you're invited, have the guts and the courage to come and face those injured workers in Hamilton-Wentworth whom your decisions are brutalizing and injuring more every single day of the week.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, let me add my voice to those who congratulate you on your short but none the less accelerated ascension to the Speaker's chair. I'm sure you'll do an honourable job there. I particularly welcome you as a fellow Hamilton-Wentworth resident.

The Speaker: I appreciate it.

Mr Christopherson: I rise also to comment on the meeting last night that I attended along with my colleague the member for Hamilton East regarding the changes to the WCB. If any of the Tories had been there or if the minister or the former junior minister had been there, they would have recognized that this nonsense they talk about the fact they're going to improve workers' compensation is just that -- a lot of nonsense. The only people who are going to gain are their corporate friends.

They intend to cut the benefits to disabled workers, and somehow workers who are injured on the job don't qualify as fully disabled. This government promised not to hurt disabled citizens, but somehow workers injured on the job don't count. They're fair game; you can go after them. You're going to cut their benefits by 5% and give that 5% as a break in premiums to your corporate friends, and that's disgusting. You're going to privatize parts of the WCB. You're going to put employers in charge of deciding in the first instance whether or not these are bona fide claims.

This government needs to be on notice: When you bring out that legislation, you'd better get out there into public hearings. If you're listening, perhaps you'll do the right thing and withdraw, really make changes that help workers and stop attacking workers.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): Mr Speaker, again, congratulations on your election to the Speaker's chair.

I rose in my place about one year ago, and in fact you may remember, to tell this Legislature and the people of Ontario that my community, the city of Brantford, had won the national Communities in Bloom competition.

Since then we have moved on. We have moved on to compete against the world and as recently as about a week ago, my community, the city of Brantford, was awarded the international competition championship for Communities in Bloom competition.

I want to say that there are a number of people in my community who deserve a great deal of thanks for making us world champions and I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their contributions, whether they be organizers of the event locally or the individual residents who came together to make us world champions. Of course, they deserve a great deal of congratulations.

I also want to tell the people of this Legislature and the people of Ontario that when you come to Brantford and when you come to visit our community, you are visiting what is now considered to be, and is recognized as, the most beautiful community in the world.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr Speaker, welcome to the chair.

Yesterday I stood to speak about the issue of the doctor shortage in my community. It's becoming worse as we go day by day, in particular, the issue with obstetricians. We have many women who are pregnant, who are in need of prenatal care, who are in need of delivery services in the very next few short months.

When we brought this to the attention of the House -- and we've been doing this for several months -- we have yet to have any reasonable attempt by the Minister of Health to address this most significant problem. Yesterday, in fact, the minister spoke with reporters from the Windsor Star and today on the front page of my paper in my community the minister says that he's prepared to declare a state of emergency in Essex county.

May I please suggest to the minister that we already have a state of emergency. What does a state of emergency mean? Does he call in the army? Does he call in the navy? Are these people going to be the ones who are helping with the delivery of babies and the provision of prenatal care?

Let me tell you what else the minister said to our reporters from the Windsor Star, "But if it is an absolute emergency, they can pop across the river." I've got to say to the minister, have you ever been to the city of Windsor? Do you know what it's like to pop across the river? Was he being facetious?

He's also said that he's prepared. "We are supplying cell phones, pagers and fax machines to the officials." Is this going to help in the delivery of babies? I think not.

Mr Minister, please take this issue seriously. He must address and find a solution.

WALK FOR AIDS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature an event which is taking place this Sunday in Toronto. It is the seventh annual AIDS Walk Toronto.

AIDS Walk Toronto is part of AIDS Walk Canada, a national fund-raising and awareness project for the Canadian AIDS Society. All funds raised in this Toronto walk will go to benefit AIDS service groups in Metropolitan Toronto.

Last year, over 18,000 people participated in the walk. At that time, the walk was called "From All Walks of Life." It's a fitting name because the walk brings together people from all walks of life to fight this terrible disease which affects people from all walks of life.

Registration for the walk begins at 10 o'clock at the Toronto city hall in my riding and passes through the neighbouring ridings of St Andrew-St Patrick and St George-St David. I hope to see the members of those particular ridings come that day.

As in previous years, I will be participating in this year's walk and I would like to invite other members of this House to join me as part of my team, to support the cause by a pledge or to participate in the walks in their own ridings.

I want to congratulate the AIDS Committee of Toronto and all of the volunteers who have helped to organize this year's walk. It's a good cause and one which I hope you will all support.

COMMUNITY AUTO THEFT REDUCTION

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): It's a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Speaker.

Auto theft has become a major problem across this province and it's costing millions of dollars to insurance companies and ultimately to the consumer. Last year in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth alone, over 5,000 vehicles were stolen. Some 76% of these thefts were committed by youths aged 12 to 17 for the purpose of joyriding.

I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a new initiative launched by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police. The Community Auto Theft Reduction project, or CAR project, has launched a major public service announcement aimed at youths aged 12 to 17, containing a very strong message called "Scared you straight."

The CAR project has received funding for the public service announcement campaign from the General Accident Insurance Co of Canada. The campaign will consist of public service announcements, both video and audio, and will be aired on both radio and television throughout southern Ontario for a period of 13 weeks.

I would like to congratulate everyone involved with this very worthwhile campaign. It's another prime example of private and public sector working in partnership to accomplish very worthwhile objectives. I encourage other municipalities to follow the lead of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police and look forward to similar projects to combat car theft.

PREMIER'S VISIT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, welcome to the chair.

The people of Sudbury were surprised to learn they had received a one-week reprieve from Mike Harris's health care budget axe. Last Tuesday was supposed to have been the day Mike Harris's handpicked Health Services Restructuring Commission announced which of Sudbury's hospitals would have their doors locked forever. But to everyone's surprise, the announcement was abruptly cancelled, delayed for one week. People hoped the delay was a sign that Mike Harris had had second thoughts on breaking his promise not to close hospitals. They hoped Mike Harris had realized his cuts were jeopardizing quality health care in Sudbury and across northern Ontario.

Unfortunately, the reason for the delay was only because Mike Harris was coming to Sudbury -- not to save our hospitals, but to attend a Conservative Party fund-raiser tomorrow at $150 a plate. The hospital closing announcement was delayed simply because Mike Harris didn't have the courage to face the people of Sudbury and defend his decision to close our hospitals.

The Premier can try to avoid facing the damage by delaying the announcement, but the damage he is causing will be with us for a long time and the people of Sudbury have long memories. They will remember Mike Harris as the person who came to dinner, closed their hospitals, and didn't have the courage to take responsibility for it. Bon appétit, Mr Premier.

HOSPITAL SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The member for London -- my apologies. I knew it was London, but I wasn't sure which one. The Chair recognizes the member for London Centre.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for agreeing to take the Chair.

Last winter, as the justice committee travelled around the province looking at health consent issues and substitute decision-making legislation, we heard from many in the disabled community that they feel they are subjected to prejudicial views on the part of health care professionals around the issue of "do not resuscitate" orders, whether those are in terms of emergency rooms, in expected surgeries or medical conditions which we would not normally consider to be life-threatening.

Given the recent issues that were raised in the Tracey Latimer case, where a parent of a disabled person killed her because of his assumptions concerning the quality of her life, this matter is of urgent concern to disabled people in this community. Indeed, we heard in an

article in the Toronto Star on Monday of this week that these concerns have not yet been allayed.

In my community, I'm meeting with the hospital CEOs and with the ethics committees at our hospitals to ensure that "do not resuscitate" orders are not inappropriately applied to disabled people. I would urge other members of this Legislature to work with the disabled community in their own locales and ensure that their hospitals and health care professionals are responding appropriately to this concern.

MUSKOKA AUTUMN STUDIO TOUR

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'd like to extend an open invitation to all Ontarians to this weekend's Muskoka Autumn Studio Tour in my Muskoka-Georgian Bay riding. Our part of central Ontario has become home for a diverse community of artists, artisans and crafts people who have set up small businesses and become entrepreneurs selling their own works.

The studio tour provides an opportunity for visitors to get inside crafts people's studios and homes and watch them at work. The tour gives visitors the freedom to choose the artisans they're interested in. By starting in Huntsville in the north or Gravenhurst in the south, a number of different routes can be taken to visit any of the 23 participating crafts people, who include painters, canoe makers, sculptors and cabinetmakers.

This annual event also gives local artists an opportunity to have contact with the people who enjoy and admire their work. The visitors are always interested in watching and sometimes participating in the artist's creative process.

The studio tour is a big boost for the local economy, as it allows vacationers the opportunity to spend the weekend at a number of world-class resorts in the area and experience Muskoka-Georgian Bay's many wonderful attractions.

So, this weekend, visit cottage country and experience Muskoka-Georgian Bay's rugged landscape, beautiful scenery and fine artistry.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a Cuban delegation attending the Canada-Cuba Solidarity Conference of 1996. I would ask that you please join us in welcoming them here today.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): I have also been advised by the table that they would like the members to retain the election-of-the-Speaker kits that were placed in their desks this morning so that they may be used next Thursday in the election process. We all understand why we need that election process, don't we? I think we found that out rather quickly.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The point of order relates to the number of ministers who are available to answer questions in the House today. The chief government whip was kind enough to inform me in a timely fashion that a number of ministers would be absent and would not be here to answer questions. We look forward to the opportunity to have those questions answered, and so I would like to register with you my complaint about the lack of ministers.

The Speaker: I hate to get difficult on my first day, but it is not a point of order.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I'm not trying to be difficult but pose you with the same point of order. I am in the position of expecting both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education and Training to be present; neither is in their chair as question period begins. I'm wondering if you could ascertain whether they will be here shortly. In their absence, I assume, unfortunately, I may have to stand down my lead questions.

The Speaker: I will see if I can get the answer to that question. Shall we stand down the leadoff questions for the time being? If you would be patient for another moment or two, the minister will be here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): As I indicated, my first question will be for the Minister of Education or of educational destruction, which is more likely the case. I have a question for you that a Thunder Bay constituent would like you to answer today.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is no such minister. I would request that the speaker on the other side address the cabinet ministers in a proper manner.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): I wonder if the member for Port Arthur could address the minister by his proper ministry, please.

Mrs McLeod: It is the member for Fort William. I did in fact address the minister as the Minister of Education; quite clearly, he is not a minister for education. I'll use the correct terminology.

I come back to the fact that I have a constituent who wants a very direct answer from him on behalf of her child. The constituent is Mrs Rizzi. Mrs Rizzi has a child with a learning disability. Her child is receiving some special education support, but for a good part of the day this child is in a grade 8 classroom with 41 students. Mrs Rizzi has spoken out today about what she thinks of your education cuts. She doesn't believe that classrooms with 40 students are manageable, period.

They are certainly not good places for students with learning disabilities, and there are three special-needs students in this class of 41. Do you agree with Mrs Rizzi that this is completely unacceptable and do you understand that this is indeed the state of education in Mike Harris's Ontario today?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for clarifying the title of the ministry and the minister. I think that's appropriate and I'm sure her example will be used by all members of the House.

I'm sure the honourable member knows I cannot and will not talk about an individual case in this chamber. However, if she has information about an individual case or concern about some person's treatment in a school system in Ontario, I'd be more than happy to entertain it, if she'd send it over, and we will make a response.

I can again assure the Leader of the Opposition that our reductions last year, our request to school boards to reduce the expenditures to have a more affordable education system in Ontario, amount to 1.8% of the grants for education in the province. It's a system that spends almost $14 billion, and so I'm sure, as I'm sure most people in the province are sure, that a 1.8% reduction in expenditures should not result in a lack of services in the classroom. I would find any lack of services in the classroom certainly repugnant to myself and all of my colleagues.

Mrs McLeod: I don't think Mrs Rizzi is going to accept that answer. I think she'll realize it isn't going to help her son much. Knowing the details of her case is obviously not going to get much of a response from you. I think Mrs Rizzi knows very well that the cuts you have made in education are hurting children in the classroom. They are most certainly hurting her son. It's important for you to understand that children who have special needs are in classrooms, and when children with special needs can't get the support they need to learn, your cuts have hurt the classroom. Mrs Rizzi is just one example. We can flood you with others.

I have another constituent, Mrs Gliddon. Her son is in a wheelchair and needs special education support. She's afraid there will not be enough special education support for her son to stay in the classroom at all this year. She would like you to know that the cuts are hurting her son. It's not just situations in the Lakehead Board of Education or in Thunder Bay. Those happen to be two that have been in my office recently.

If you want to go to Brant county, they have cut 12.5% from the special education in their secondary schools, so there are going to be students in Brant county facing the same kinds of impossible situations that Mrs Gliddon's son and Mrs Rizzi's son are facing in Thunder Bay. How can you possibly continue to deny that your cuts have hurt classroom education and are hurting kids?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to again inform the Leader of the Opposition that I, of course, can't comment on individual cases in this chamber. I would be more than happy to entertain those individual cases if she would send them over to me.

I can also again assure her that we have every reason to believe that the requests we have to find savings amounting to 1.8% should not have an effect on the classroom and most certainly should not have an effect on the services provided to those young people in Ontario who are most in need. If those circumstances are happening, it points to very poor choice-making at the level of service delivery, and we would certainly address that.

I also want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that we have said over the course of the last 15 months that we recognize that the general legislative grant system in the province of Ontario is not fair, and that we intend to change it, and that we intend to have funding for education that's designed to meet the identifiable student needs. We believe in funding students and not in funding systems, and that is why we are undergoing the redress of problems in our funding of education that have existed in this province for a very long period of time, including the time the Leader of the Opposition's government was in power. We are finally redressing those very serious concerns.

Mrs McLeod: It is not a question of poor choice-making on the part of school boards, and I say again it is not just the Lakehead board, it is every board in this province that is facing absolutely impossible choices because of the cuts this minister and this government have made to education. If he wants to take the specifics of the case -- Mrs Rizzi has already phoned his office today to make him aware of the specifics of the case -- he might also want to look at the realities of the budget of the Lakehead Board of Education.

He might want to find that the administrative costs of the Lakehead board are well under any targets he has set for reasonable administrative costs for a board of education. They have nowhere else to go.

That's what's happening in the real world, not only in the Lakehead board but right across this province, and parents like Mrs Rizzi and Mrs Gliddon and hundreds of other parents of special-needs kids know that's what's happening in the real world. The only one who doesn't understand is this minister who lives in an Alice in Wonderland world where $400 million in cuts somehow makes things look better.

On Tuesday, I asked whether or not you were seriously contemplating even further cuts, millions of dollars in more cuts to education this year, as much as $600 million. You did not deny that when I asked you that question directly on Tuesday. You apparently did deny it yesterday. I think it's time for you to stop playing your Alice in Wonderland games with children's education. I want you to tell us today, to give us a guarantee, that you are going to abandon your plans to cut millions of dollars more out of education when your cuts have already devastated classrooms and are hurting kids.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that her words today have been heard. I think she has made a great case for what we have been saying for over the last year, and that is that the funding system for education in Ontario must be reformed, must be changed, and we are up to that change, although the previous two governments were not up to making that substantive fundamental change to our education system in Ontario.

I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that my efforts and the efforts of my colleagues over the next 12 months will be the same as they have been over the past 12 months, and that is to make sure the people of Ontario have a more affordable, a more accountable, and most importantly, a higher quality system of education than they had before this government took office, and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that in fact will be the case.

Mrs McLeod: I can only wish the Minister of Education would stop talking nonsense and visit a classroom where these kids are really feeling the effect of his cuts.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will place my second question to the minister in charge of closing hospitals. A few days ago you were quoted as saying that hospital restructuring in Winnipeg was giving better service, more surgeries and greater access. Well, that may be Winnipeg, but I can tell you that here in the province of Ontario under your direction the results of your so-called restructuring is chaos and confusion and fear and anger and less access to health care and poorer quality health care in communities across the province.

You will surely be aware now that yesterday the entire town of Wiarton virtually shut down as 3,000 people gathered to protest the impact that your $1.3-billion cuts to hospitals is going to have on their community. They are desperately afraid that your cuts are going to result in the closing of several hospitals, including Wiarton Hospital, and you will know that Wiarton Hospital was built just two years ago after the community raised $4 million.

Minister, as the sole person with the power to sign death warrants for Ontario's hospitals, a power that you asked for and that you now have, will you today assure the people of Wiarton that you will not close their community hospital?

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The Minister of Health.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I don't think it was to the Minister of Health, Mr Speaker.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, we have no minister on this side of the floor as titled by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker: I wonder if you could readdress the question to the --

Mrs McLeod: I certainly will, Mr Speaker. If there is no minister by that title, there is certainly a minister responsible for closing hospitals. I will place my question to the Minister of Health, who holds that responsibility.

Hon Mr Wilson: Mr Speaker, I didn't pay a lot of attention to the question because I didn't think it was to me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: I have no comment, as is the policy of this government, with respect to the development or the contents of a district health council report while that report is being produced by the local community. As I've said in this House and outside of this chamber, not only during my entire time as Minister of Health but during my entire time as health critic, it is improper for politicians at this level to interfere in the development of local communities' plans for their health care systems, and I will not budge from that position.

Mrs McLeod: When this minister isn't trying to bully his way through health care, he is denying any responsibility for what he is directly responsible for. That includes the closing of hospitals and it includes the $1.3-billion cut that's forcing communities like Wiarton to be looking at the closure of their community hospitals.

Minister, I want you to keep looking at the reality, because you can't deny your responsibility for it. I want you to look at what you're doing in Kitchener -- just one more example, Kitchener -- where your funding cuts have so starved St Mary's hospital that the board is now considering closing their hospital within three years. They simply don't believe that your cuts will allow them to offer quality health care and allow them to stay open and provide health care to people in their community. The closure of this hospital has nothing to do with delivering better care or creating more access.

The closure of this hospital, like the potential closure of the Wiarton Hospital, has everything to do with your $1.3-billion cut to hospitals. You know it and the public knows it, and even members of your own caucus know it.

I have here a letter written by one of your colleagues, a letter written by Mr Wettlaufer, the MPP for Kitchener. This is a letter he wrote to you yesterday. In talking about the closure of St Mary's General Hospital, he says:

"The argument justifying this decision was that it was a `win-win' decision, mutually agreed upon and supported by the district health council. However" -- and I hope you are paying attention at this point, Minister -- "I am advised that it was prompted by the threat of an $18-million cutback in funding to the hospitals in our region."

Will you admit that your colleague Mr Wettlaufer, the MPP for Kitchener, concerned about health care in his area, is right, and that the closure of his hospital is being driven by your $1.3-billion funding cut to hospitals?

Hon Mr Wilson: Let me quote from Murray Elston, Minister of Health, Hansard, October 12, 1986: "The object of the amalgamation is to streamline their administration and produce savings, which the hospital plans to use to improve" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. A little more decorum, please, and if there isn't going to be decorum, please try to do it from your own seats. Thank you.

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, I won't comment on the development of local plans by local communities. People deserve our respect with respect to their autonomy to make those decisions. The government made it very clear when Mr Eves made the announcement last year that $1.3 billion will come out of the hospital side of the ledger and be reinvested in community savings. Our first reinvestment of that money, without actually having seen the money yet from hospitals, was $170 million into new community services, to service 80,000 to 100,000 more seniors and people who need community services and create 4,400 new jobs for nurses, homemakers and other health care providers in community settings.

Is the honourable member suggesting that we freeze the hospital budgets, allow them all to drive to mediocrity so there's no excellence any more but 219 hospitals that can't operate properly? Or should we set up an arm's-length commission to take the politics out of this, create centres of excellence in each community and make sure that the people of that community, the patients, can receive the full range of services they're entitled to, including community services?

The member's party announced the $647 million for community services. The NDP announced the $647 million for community services. You forgot to flow a lot of that money. We found that money. We fronted it with a $300-million increase in the budget to health care this year. We're putting the services in place where they ought to be: in the community. If the member is suggesting that we should reverse this entire plan, which is agreed to by health experts and, up to this point, by all three parties, I'd like to hear the honourable member be very clear about what exactly she's driving at.

Mrs McLeod: I trust the minister is not even attempting to suggest that taking $1.3 billion out of the budgets of our hospitals is somehow going to prevent mediocrity and lead them to excellence. That is the fundamental stupidity of what he has done to hospitals and to hospital planning. You can't take $1.3 billion out of the hospitals, starve them into closure and expect to be able to provide access to health care in communities. That is the starting point for quality health care in this province: reasonable budgets and planning that allows us to get the best health care we can.

Listen to local people. Listen to your own colleague, Mr Wettlaufer. Listen to what he says when he says that if it were not for St Mary's hospital in his community, he would be dead today. That's a quote, Minister. He says, "I would be dead today."

People are worried. They think your restructuring process is a sham. They know it is driven by the bottom line, the dollars you have taken out of hospital budgets and the fact that hospitals can't provide quality care any more.

Just ask the people of Kitchener what they think is going to happen. It has nothing to do with future needs. Ask the people of Wiarton as they look at the closure of their community hospital. Ask whether your cuts have anything to do with saving lives; it is jeopardizing them, and your own member has said that.

Minister, will you not understand, will you not admit that because you have cut $1.3 billion from hospital budgets, there is only one bottom line driving the direction of your restructuring, and that is: "Cut, and cut quickly, and damn the consequences for health. Full speed ahead."

Hon Mr Wilson: There is only one party that has cut health care in the province of Ontario, and that is the federal Liberal government, which cut health care by $2.1 billion. That is a fact of life. Go talk to Ottawa. If you think of $2.1 billion, we wouldn't have a problem with physicians today, who want $500 million, a small portion of the $2.1 billion. In fact, although I think it would be the wrong thing for the system -- because it is right to restructure, it is right to create centres of excellence, it is right to get the waste and duplication of administration out of the system -- the status quo isn't even possible because of the $2.1-billion cuts.

Rather than throw up our arms, we are taking a very responsible approach. Restructuring is being led by health experts and people who know of what they speak. The honourable member should point fingers at the federal government. The only party in this province cutting health care is the Liberal Party of Canada.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): It's very interesting that the Minister of Health can afford a $5-billion tax break for wealthy people in Ontario but can't afford enough money for health care and says it's someone else's fault.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Minister of Health. The minister says he has a contingency plan in the event that doctors take no further patients or doctors go on strike. His contingency plan is to send patients to the United States, so I want to ask the minister about that contingency plan. In Ontario an obstetrician currently receives $290 for each normal delivery. The cost of the hospital stay averages $900. Now in Detroit at Hutzel Hospital the average cost for delivery and hospital stay is $10,000.

This is not a complicated issue, Minister, and we checked with Ministry of Health staff. So we're dealing with $10,000 in a Detroit hospital as opposed to $1,190 in an Ontario hospital.

All of this doesn't take into account the administrative costs and the concurrent nightmares in processing all those American claims through Ontario's health care system. In addition, it does not take into account the prenatal and post-partum care of the patient. We know that doctors' fees in the US vary quite a bit. In Ontario, if an obstetrician sees a patient from conception through birth and post-partum, that doctor would receive another $540. So we're comparing now about $1,500 in Ontario with $10,000 at a Detroit hospital. Suggesting that you can deal with the problem you've created by sending women to the United States doesn't provide any comfort to the 1,300 women without a doctor.

Minister, can you tell us, if it costs seven times as much in the United States to pay for these health care problems, how are you going to do this?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The naysayers and fearmongers on the other side of the House do a great disservice to the patients and people of Ontario. Only 40 of the 219 hospitals in this province expect any disruption in a worst-case scenario. So we expect to have enough capacity in Ontario to deal with any foreseen consequences of any job actions by any health care providers.

Having said that, I don't expect we will ever have to use the contingency plans, which are not my contingency plans. I am not at the table developing these contingency plans. Officials from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Ontario Hospital Association and, yes, Ministry of Health officials are jointly developing these plans.

I will not speculate today because I believe with the goodwill that we've seen from the Ontario Medical Association and this government that over the next month during our rounds of serious negotiations we will go a long way towards solving the frustrations that physicians have today in this province, had in the extreme when you were in government for five years and were out on the front lawn in 1986 when the Liberals were in government.

This is not a new phenomenon. Unhappy physicians are a North American phenomenon and we will deal with it in the forum that has been set up with the Ontario Medical Association in the serious negotiations that we're about to enter into next Tuesday.

Mr Hampton: Once again, the Minister of Health doesn't answer the question. The question is, and we all know this, that when patients are sent to the United States, the costs go up astronomically. The minister, earlier this week, said to people all across Ontario that his contingency plan was to send patients to the United States. I simply asked him how he's going to pay for it, and once again he doesn't have an answer. So let me try again.

We met with the OMA last night, and I have to say that there is not a lot of goodwill at the OMA for you, Minister. As far as they're concerned, they're tired of hearing about your contingency plans that amount to nothing. But let's have another go at it.

It has been reported that you have $700 million to pay for this so-called contingency plan. It has been reported that's how much you have. If that's what you have, why don't you use it and get down to tackling the real structural problem that exists in Ontario. The real structural problem with obstetricians is that 40% of them are over 50 years old. They're going to leave the system at some point in the next few years anyway, so why don't you sit down now with your $700 million instead of blowing it in the United States and getting nothing for it? Why don't you sit down now and start to tackle the real structural problem?

Hon Mr Wilson: The issue the honourable member raises is a good issue that narrows down to the appropriate supply of specialists in this province. It's an issue that all governments have struggled with. We certainly have some of the best education programs here. We are still a very good place to practise medicine in North America. We are having ongoing discussions through the entire time that I've been minister with the OMA about trying to attract medical students and stream them into specialties where they know they're very much needed by the people of Ontario.

That's an ongoing problem and there are solutions to that; from time to time the two parties work out and we are able to attract students into the proper stream. So this is a physician resource management question, a legitimate question, and one that all governments have had to deal with.

Secondly, I watched last night the OMA's video sent out to all the doctors in the province and I can tell you absolutely that Dr Gerry Rowland, the president of the OMA, said on many occasions in that video that was just sent out to all the doctors that there's a lot of goodwill between the government and the OMA and said nothing negative about the government to his membership in the recent video.

Mr Hampton: It's nice to know the Minister of Health spends his time watching videos. I'd like to say to the minister, we met with the real people last night at the OMA and I don't know what you're watching in your videos, but we came away from the meeting with quite a different view of what's happening and quite a different view of how people are feeling about how you've handled the health care system in Ontario.

They're very clear: It's your mishandling of the health care system, it's your resort to Bill 26, which essentially took the OMA out of the picture and that has created many of these problems. Now you have to go across the province and talk to literally dozens of physician groups. You've got no way of managing the problem. And they're very clear about that: You created your own problem; you created your own unmanageable situation.

I want to go back to the original question because I still don't have an answer. The minister is proposing to send 1,300 women to the United States for childbirth and he's proposing to pay $13 million in the United States, when delivery in Ontario would cost $2 million. And then he has the gall to tell people this is all about saving money in the health care system.

I want to ask the minister again -- that is your contingency plan; it's the one you told people in Ontario all about -- how is it that refusing to tackle the real structural problem, how is it that sending 1,300 women to the United States to have their children born there and spending $13 million there rather than $2 million at home, how is it that this gets us anywhere, Minister?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member across the way has a lot of gall. The doctors began to really get upset with government when you signed an agreement with them in 1991 and 1993, and didn't live up to eight of the 12 aspects, which ended up before the courts. We come into office; we inherit legal bills of millions of dollars, with both sides before the umpires in this quasi-judicial arbitrated system that you set up, and nothing -- everything at a stalemate, people fighting across the table.

The doctors walked out on you in February 1995 and we've got them back to the table. We should be congratulated for taking a proper approach to negotiations. They walked out on you, something you will wear and that party will wear for the rest of your existence here in the province of Ontario, and we're having a constructive relationship. I watched the video because the president of the OMA sent it to me and I had the courtesy to watch it. Maybe you should watch it and show some courtesy to the president of the OMA.

HEALTH BENEFIT ALLOWANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I would ask the next question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, but she is not here, so I'll go back to the Minister of Health. He's the only minister who could ever have most physicians in the province ready to refuse new patients and say that he's creating a good relationship. How absurd.

What can the minister tell us about the Ministry of Health benefit allowance? Has the Ministry of Health benefit allowance commenced? If so, when did it commence or when is it going to commence? What does the Ministry of Health benefit allowance deal with?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I do not know the answer to what the Ministry of Health benefit allowance is. Perhaps the honourable member could tell me whether it's referred to by a different name or what program he's referring to.

Mr Hampton: For some time we have been aware that the government is trying to move some people who are the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services over into the Ministry of Health, into the health budget, and then say: "The Ministry of Health budget is still $17.4 billion. Don't worry, the health budget hasn't changed, but please ignore the fact that all these new people are now the responsibility of the Ministry of Health." So you have more claims for the $17.4 billion than you ever had before.

Does the Minister of Health admit that the government is planning to move responsibility for seniors and disabled people out of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and into the Ministry of Health with no budget increase? Does the minister acknowledge that?

Hon Mr Wilson: Seniors has already moved to the Ministry of Health, and we have a minister for seniors, in case somebody missed the cabinet shuffle. The program dollars are fully protected. There weren't really many program dollars over at culture for that. With respect to whatever other thing you're concocting over there, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Mr Hampton: I want to read the Minister of Health this memorandum that a client at Comsoc received. It's a computer-printed one and it says:

"I wish to advise that your allowance under the Family Benefits Act has been adjusted, effective July 1, 1996, in light of the following changes in circumstances: Ministry of Health benefit allowance has commenced. Basic allowance has ceased. Shelter allowance has ceased. Medical transit allowance has ceased."

The person who received this is just an ordinary citizen, someone who received an allowance from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Imagine their surprise when they're now told that the Ministry of Health benefit allowance has commenced.

Let me tell you what I think the government is up to. Not only have they transferred responsibility for senior citizens to the Ministry of Health, with no commensurate budget increase in the Ministry of Health, they are also transferring responsibility for up to 170,000 people with disabilities into the Ministry of Health, about $2 billion worth of budget. But there has been no commensurate increase in the Ministry of Health budget. In other words, it's a shell game.

Yes, the Ministry of Health budget may be $17.4 billion or $17.5 billion, but the fact is that the government is loading more and more responsibility in there and therefore there are more claims for that $17 billion, which means in effect the Ministry of Health budget has been cut and has been cut more than this minister was prepared to let on.

Minister, will you admit that your government is in the process of transferring some of the responsibility for disabled people from the Ministry of Community and Social Services into the Ministry of Health, that you're not increasing the budget at the same time, which constitutes either a budget cut for disabled people or for health care services in the province? Which is it?

Hon Mr Wilson: I don't know what the honourable member is talking about, other than that if the honourable member would like to read the Common Sense Revolution document, it did say we would be setting up a guaranteed income plan for seniors and disabled, because we think it is wrong that people who are on prolonged disability and have no hope of working again -- seniors had to go on welfare to get certain benefits. We said that was against the dignity of human beings like seniors, who don't deserve to have to go on social assistance, and that they should have their own guaranteed income plan.

If the Minister of Community and Social Services were here, they could probably get a fuller explanation, but there currently are discussions going on with consumers, seniors, external groups and the federal Liberal government about how we might structure that plan and fully live up to that part of the Common Sense Revolution and all the Common Sense Revolution.

That is all that is going on. If the honourable member wants to send me across this alleged piece of paper, I'd be happy to look at it. It doesn't seem like very much from here. It's a little scribble on a corner of a page. I'd be happy to try to be more informative, but I can tell you that his speculation is way out of line and way off the mark.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question also is to the Minister of Health. Minister, on January 17, 1996, you wrote to several health service providers in Sudbury, indicating: "My ministry has already accepted the district health council's recommendations regarding clinical programs, support services and sitings as identified in the hospital services review report. Consideration of other siting models is not acceptable."

Minister, are you still supportive of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council's HSR report and siting designations?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member will know that the Health Services Restructuring Commission, which is at arm's length from the government, will very soon be rendering a decision on Sudbury, and I do not know what that decision will be.

Mr Bartolucci: So much for the response that the minister gave to our leader. He certainly avoided the question, and I don't appreciate it.

But let me follow up by saying that the report is going to come down on Monday -- you're right -- a week later than it should have. We all know the reason why; certainly you do. You all know that the so-called $1.3-billion savings is not to improve service and is not to enhance health care. It's simply to achieve a 30% tax cut.

Having said that -- and I'd like an answer to this question, Minister -- is it your intention to support the health services commission's recommendation to close the Memorial Hospital, the Sudbury General Hospital and the Algoma Hospital if the commission hands down a one-site model for Sudbury and district?

Hon Mr Wilson: The process is very clear to everyone. The commission will render its interim decision, there'll be a 30-day period in which the public and the ministry are invited to make comment, and we will avail ourselves of that period as we expect the honourable member and others to do. At the end of the day, the decision is that of the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

I would again remind honourable members that health care has not been cut one penny in this province; in fact, it's up significantly this year over last year.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that the condition of the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre is very poor. It was recommended for improvements, was approved for a $20-million capital project by our government and you said you were going to confirm that. Can the minister now confirm to the House that he has changed the $20-million confirmation and 100% provincial funding to two-thirds provincial funding, which means you've cut it back to $18 million total, only $12 million of provincial money, and that's leaving the community $6 million they're going to have to raise for this regional cancer centre? Can you confirm that?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): It is true that we made the announcement publicly that the funding formula for cancer centres has changed from 100% -- this is the capital portion -- to 75%, as has the funding formula for public hospitals. We believe very strongly -- and we're told by the cancer experts, the OCTRF, Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, and others -- that local communities would be very happy to raise a small portion of dollars towards capital projects.

I would ask the indulgence of the honourable member to check exactly the status of that project, because some projects that had been announced were grandparented. Others where we're still waiting for recommendations as to which centres should be built next -- and the OCTRF is getting back to us on that -- would fall under the new formula. I will endeavour to get the answer back to the honourable member as quickly as possible.

Mr Cooke: I can assure the minister that unless his ministry changes the policy and does exempt the Windsor centre, they've already been told they're going to have to raise $6 million. While the minister can say that the cancer associations say they can raise the money, let me tell you the situation we're facing in Windsor right now. With a population in Windsor-Essex of 350,000 people, your ministry is now asking us to raise $30 million for the reconfiguration or reform of the local hospitals that's part of that whole process, $2 million for a new MRI and now $6 million for the cancer centre.

We're close to $40 million we're going to have to raise among 350,000 people. That works out to $566 per family to be raised for health care reform in Windsor-Essex. But of course you've been good enough -- your government has been -- to give us a $172 tax break. How can you be serious about health care reform and reconfiguring the hospitals in Windsor-Essex and expect that a community of our size can raise that kind of capital money? Something's got to go.

Hon Mr Wilson: I take the concerns expressed by the honourable member quite seriously and I'd be happy to sit down with him and representatives of his community, the district health council and that, to see how we can work through this. You've done a great job. You're the first area of the province to undergo significant restructuring. You've received a 106% increase in your home care budget. We're waiting for customers in your riding right now. We have more dollars available for that side of the ledger. We've taken that money out of the new dollars in health care.

You're in pretty good shape, but you make a good point on the capital side and I'll see what we can do. I'll be happy to have those discussions with you on behalf of your community.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question today is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization. First, I'd like to congratulate the minister on his new appointment, which I think is in recognition of his excellent work so far on automobile insurance reforms. So my congratulations to the minister.

Some consumers in Niagara South have been receiving details on changes to their automobile insurance due to the implementation of Bill 59, the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act. My understanding was that Bill 59 maximizes choice for consumers and for drivers.

My question to the minister is, how will consumers in Port Colborne and Fort Erie benefit from this?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I thank my colleague the member for Niagara South for the kind introduction and the welcome to this portfolio.

Applause.

Hon Mr Sampson: I also thank the honourable members opposite for that round of applause. I suspect that might be the last time they do that.

My colleague the member for Niagara South is correct: We decided to reform auto insurance because we felt it was important for consumers to finally have some choice in automobile insurance purchasing in this province. That's something they haven't had for years and years. The last two reforms withdrew choice from consumers in auto insurance. So we were happy to deliver a plan that allowed consumers to choose between income protection levels, to choose between disability protection levels, to choose various levels of death benefits etc. We think it's important.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's my understanding that the Minister of Finance is the minister responsible for financial institutions. It's also my information that an order in council hasn't been signed that would give the authority to answer with regard to financial institutions to the minister for privatization. I wonder if you might take that point of order into consideration.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): I'll take that under advisement for just a few seconds.

To the member, I wonder if, sir, you are in charge of auto insurance under your portfolio?

Hon Mr Sampson: Yes, I am taking responsibility for auto insurance.

The Speaker: The question, in that case, would be in order, and the answer would be in order.

Mr Crozier: Can the minister clarify, then, whether that responsibility has been given by order in council.

The Speaker: Minister, if you could clarify that.

Hon Mr Sampson: I was carrying the auto insurance legislation. It's a matter of record in Hansard. At this point in time I'm not aware of the fact that an order in council is required, sir.

The Speaker: I believe that is not a point of order.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I recognize this is your first day, and we are not attempting to be difficult, and I realize this is the first question for the minister. But the minister is responding that he has responsibility for something that he had responsibility for when he was a parliamentary assistant, not as minister for privatization. How can he carry on the responsibilities of parliamentary assistant when someone else has the role now?

The Speaker: I'll check to see if I can get a response from the House leader to that question.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Stop the clock.

The Speaker: It is not the procedure, I don't believe, to stop the clock at these moments.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I can only advise that Mr Sampson has had carriage of this issue in the past. My understanding is that Mr Sampson is still involved at this point.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I believe the member for Niagara South was next on the point of order.

Mr Hudak: I have a very simple question on behalf of my constituents from Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Wainfleet and Niagara Falls, a lot of questions in my office on this topic, and I'd like to address the question and continue with my supplemental if I could.

The Speaker: After having heard all that, I rule that the point of order is not a point of order and we will continue with the response.

Hon Mr Sampson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I guess if you'd ruled in their favour, they would have had to applaud again the next time I answered a question.

Clearly, as I was saying, we delivered on our promise to the electorate to provide the consumers of this province with some choice in their automobile insurance. That's what the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act did do, and I'm proud of it.

Mr Hudak: I'm relaying this question on behalf of my constituents. It's a very important issue in my riding and I appreciate the opportunity to ask and get an answer on these issues.

Again to the minister without portfolio responsible for privatization, there are a number of detailed questions I received at the Wainfleet Fair, and also to my office in Stevensville, Ontario. How can we ensure that consumers receive clear answers and understand the benefits they are going to receive from Bill 59?

Hon Mr Sampson: I want to inform my colleague from Niagara South that consumer choice in the delivery of that information has been very important to us. Auto insurance has been a complex subject for consumers to understand and we have tried to simplify that process. The industry has provided a brochure and has sent that to their various insureds. There will be an extensive advertising program to help consumers finally understand what options they have under this plan.

I will be today writing the industry, instructing them to ensure they provide maximum consumer choice to consumers in the delivery of this new plan when it becomes effective on November 1, because our plan was about more choice for auto insurance, a much better product at today's price.

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Speaker, welcome to the chair.

My question is for the minister responsible for consumer protection. Yesterday when I asked you, as the consumer minister, if you were going to end the practice of negative option billing in Ontario, you said, "Clearly the matter of negative billing is something we should be looking at in terms of consumer protection." Minister, you've had a day to think about it. Can you tell this House today what exactly you're going to do to protect consumers from negative option billing?

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): Minister of consumer and corporate affairs.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, as I understand it, that was not the way I was addressed by the honourable member across the way.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Quit being so stupid over there. Answer the question.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is no desire to waste time. I believe that the people of Ontario expect decorum in the House. A part of that decorum which you have explained today involves addressing the ministers by their proper title. It's a simple issue. He was not addressed by his proper title. The members opposite surely know the proper title.

The Speaker: I believe he called him the minister of consumer protection. I think his intent was correct, so we won't allow a point of order on that. If the minister would continue with his response, please.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's just that I was taking things in the context of the rest of the titles that were being thrown over from across the floor today.

It was my understanding yesterday that the question asked by the member for Essex South was an isolated instance. I have investigated the matter further and consulted with the Minister of Finance and found that perhaps this issue is a little wider spread than originally thought. The intent, of course, of Bill 59 was to ensure consumer options. Certainly that's something that this government wants to ensure, consumer options.

I want this House to know that this government will not tolerate these types of practices, and I wish to thank the honourable member for drawing this to our attention. I think it's important, and I want to assure the House that this government will rectify this situation whether it's by regulation, by legislation or by other measures. I would also like to advise that my colleague the Minister of Finance, who is not here right now, will be sending a letter today to the insurance industry indicating to them that this practice will not be tolerated.

Mr Crozier: I appreciate the fact, having raised the question in the Legislature yesterday, that it has apparently moved the government to take some action, because if anything came out of yesterday's discussion, and I'm sure there has been some clarification since that time, it's that any time any service -- and the insurance industry was an example -- any time that doing nothing is given as an option, in any reasonable thinking person's mind would be negative option. I'm pleased to hear that the minister today has advised us that he will in fact do that.

Might I suggest, Minister, that the Consumer Protection Act merely needs to be amended, and we would support an amendment to that effect.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services, and it's returning to the issue of young offenders and the treatment of young offenders under his care. Minister, you've assured the public time and time again that no youth would be put in adult settings and that no youth would be put in adult segregation.

In fact when, after the tragic death of James Lonnee, this issue was addressed by you in a press scrum on September 11, a reporter said to you, following the riots and events at Elgin-Middlesex, "You assured the public that there would be no youth put in adult settings and no youth would be put in adult segregation," and you responded, "That's right."

On Tuesday you gave me reassurances again in response to the questions that I put to you about this. That very day a young offender, a 16-year-old, was being housed in adult segregation at Vanier, with adult offenders in cells on either side of her. I don't know what good your directives are if nobody is following them. I don't know when you're going to get control of your ministry, Minister, but were you aware of this particular youth at Vanier? Is this kind of contravention routine? Did you approve this? Did your deputy minister or your assistant deputy minister approve this? When are you going to put a stop to this practice, as you promised the people of Ontario?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): It's interesting that the member tries to take this tack time and time again, as do members of her party, with respect to challenges and problems within the corrections systems in Ontario, both the youth and adult sides.

I have indicated that we're making the most wide-ranging changes in the corrections system of any government in memory, and certainly problem after problem came before that government when they were in power. I have a list of incidents that could choke a cow, from 1987 till we took power in 1995, many of them on the young offenders side.

We're moving, as I said, on a wide range of fronts to deal with this issue in a substantive way, and I'm very confident that we're doing the appropriate things, the right things, to deal with young offenders.

I have no doubt when incidents like this arise, Mr Speaker --

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, he's just running the clock. Wind him down.

Hon Mr Runciman: This member, we know, has had experience in the corrections system. She certainly is very much aware of the challenges of the corrections culture, and no doubt we're going to have incidents of this nature, any kinds of problems or allegations, raised on a daily basis --

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Come on, Mr Speaker. He's running the clock.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): If the minister will answer the question, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- in an effort to try and suggest that this is some new kind of challenge for the Ontario government and we aren't dealing with this in an effective way when in fact these problems have been around for years and years and years, and those governments, both of them, failed to deal with it in an effective way. We are going to deal with it in an effective way.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Ms Lankin: You let it run out, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I believe this has happened in the past.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, if I could, I wish to advise the House of the weekly business statement.

Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the week of September 30, 1996.

On Monday, September 30, we hope to complete second reading of Bill 57,

an act to improve the environmental approvals process. On Tuesday, October 1, we will be in the opposition day, standing in the name of the leader of the official opposition. On Wednesday, October 2, we hope to complete third reading of Bill 70, the Tax Credits and Economic Stimulation Act. On Thursday, October 3, we will begin second reading of Bill 79, the Courts Improvement Act, although, as we all note, there could be other activities on Thursday that I'm sure every member of the House is aware of at this point.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:

On the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr Wildman be substituted for Mr Hampton; on the standing committee on estimates, Mr Kormos be substituted for Mr Martin; on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mr Pouliot be substituted for Ms Lankin and Mr Martin be substituted for Mr Silipo; on the standing committee on government agencies, Mr Silipo be substituted for Mr Martin; on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, Mr Wildman be substituted for Mr Cooke; on the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr Martin be substituted for Mr Pouliot; and on the standing committee on social development, Mr Cooke be substituted for Mr Wildman and Ms Lankin be substituted for Mr Laughren.

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 39, 40, 41 and 42 and that Mr Ouellette and Mrs Marland exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have this petition that is signed by hundreds of residents of Parkdale and beyond. It's addressed to the assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Tory government has decided to replace our current child care system with one that lacks compassion and common sense and is fraught with many dangerous consequences; and

"Whereas the concept of affordable, accessible and quality child care is a basic, important, fundamental right for many members of our community who are either unemployed and enrolled into a training program or are working single parents or where both parents are working; and

"Whereas if our present provincial government is sincere in getting people back to work, they should recognize the value of the child care component of the Jobs Ontario program and acknowledge the validity of the wage subsidy to the child care workers,

"We, therefore, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care workers of our Parkdale and High Park communities urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend their plans to implement cuts to our present child care programs across our province, and restore funding to their previous levels."

I've affixed my signature to this document.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Mr Speaker, I must congratulate you on your position, which I'm sure you'll find interesting and hard at times in controlling the members of the House. You're doing very well.

I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which comes from a number of residents in my particular area and in which they show some concern with respect to the proposed legislation on rent control. I take the pleasure of reading it to the House.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has announced its intention to remove rent control from apartments that become vacant so that landlords can charge whatever rent they want; and

"Whereas the government's proposal will eliminate rent control on new buildings, and allow landlords to pass on repair bills and other costs to tenants; and

"Whereas the government's proposal will make it easier for landlords to demolish buildings and easier to convert apartments to condominiums; and

"Whereas due to the zero vacancy rate in Metro Toronto the removal of rent control will cause extreme hardship for seniors and tenants on fixed incomes and others who cannot afford homes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent control system."

I agree with the content of the petition and I will affix my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise to present a petition on behalf of John Martin and John Balloch of Local 1005, United Steelworkers of America. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition and show that support by signing my name along with theirs.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Once again, I present to the Parliament of Ontario today my third petition on condominium overcrowding, containing several hundred names.

"Whereas the present Condominium Act of Ontario does not give the condominium corporations the legal right to limit the number of people who occupy each unit in the complex, thus causing overcrowding situations in many buildings; and

"Whereas this overcrowding creates excessive demand on services and facilities of the condominiums, leading to tensions, violence, fire and health problems, increased maintenance expenses, and depreciation of values;

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

"We strongly recommend that the Condominium Act of Ontario be amended to give the condominium corporations, through their own rules and regulations, the legal right to limit the number of persons per unit and a right of entry to ensure adherence to the rules. The rights of condominium owners and taxpayers must be considered and supported in order to alleviate the inequitable situation."

I have the petition here and there are several hundred names on it.

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.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by thousands of auto workers and forwarded to me by the health and safety department of the Canadian Auto Workers union and their national office. The petition reads as follows:

"To Premier Harris:

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

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

I affix my name in support of this petition.

ST MARYS SCHOOL

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The Chair recognizes the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think you're doing a fine job.

I have a petition here signed by many people from my riding regarding St Marys school in Victoria Harbour in my riding, and I'd like to file it today.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Mr Speaker, as you know, a week tomorrow, Friday, October 4, the final verdict of the Health Services Restructuring Commission will be coming down in Thunder Bay. Certainly, I want to give an enormous amount of credit to all the people who've responded to the initial report in June and have written thousands of letters and petitions and faxes. I would like to read at least one of the petitions today.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We do not believe you have made the best choice for the health care system in northwestern Ontario. We are deeply concerned with the speed and the amount of bed reductions you have dictated.

"We are also concerned with your intention to close three hospitals out of the five currently operating in Thunder Bay. These hospitals, although seeming to be concentrated, are in fact providing essential regional service. By reducing the total number of beds from 954 to 526, and in the process eliminating psychiatric and chronic care hospitals, the 428-bed reduction will leave the lives of our families, friends and ourselves at risk.

"If it was your intention to act on behalf of the interests of the public, we, as members of that public, ask you to reflect upon your conscience, for you will be ultimately responsible for the error in this decision."

I sign my name to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition signed by several workers, members of labour councils throughout the province -- London and district, Durham Regional Labour Council, Guelph and district, and Brampton-Mississauga -- and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

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

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

I've attached my signature to it as well.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have a petition from 54 people from the Niagara region. In the petition, they request that the Ontario government negotiate with the co-op housing sector to ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

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

"To the government of Ontario:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery;

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation, will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come;

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income;

"Since the placement of VLTs in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I affix my signature to this petition, which has a number of signatures on it, because I'm in agreement with it.

ABORTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Mr Speaker, congratulations to you in your new position.

I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Waterloo North, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas induced abortion is the intentional medical killing of a pre-born human being before birth, and evidence that pre-born human beings of five to six weeks' gestation have the ability to experience pain has been reported as long ago as 1941 and corroborated as recently as 1994;

"Whereas a recent study reviewing all available research on the reasons for abortion in Canada concluded that, `As the procedure (abortion) is not therapeutic, and as there is mounting evidence that it is harmful to women's health, funding by the government under health care cannot be justified';

"Whereas US studies have shown that where public funding for abortion has been removed, both the pregnancy rate and the abortion rate have dropped significantly;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require that `elective procedures' be funded, nor has any Canadian court ever found a constitutional right to publicly fund abortion;

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government remove induced abortion from its medically insured services;

"That the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, endeavour to encourage an alliance between all groups offering crisis pregnancy support across the province."

BEAR HUNTING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here signed by a large number of Ontario residents, most of whom are young people who live in my community of East York and east Toronto. It is a petition to the end the spring bear hunt. It is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and reads as follows:

"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."

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has a duty and responsibility to provide driver examination centres across the province;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the MTO explore every option of retaining driver examinations in the Leamington area, and that the MTO postpone the closing of the present DEC site" in Leamington "until a new solution is formulated."

I affix my signature in support of these 520 petitioners.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 57,

An Act to improve the Efficiency of the Environmental Approvals Process and Certain Other Matters / Projet de loi 57, Loi visant à améliorer l'efficience du processus d'autorisation environnementale et concernant certaines autres questions.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I will continue today where I left off in talking about this bill. I was giving a rundown of some of the gutting and deregulation that's been taken on to date, which fills pages and pages, unfortunately.

I'm going to talk now very specifically about some of the content of the bill. There are several aspects to this bill that are extremely problematic. However, the most catastrophic portion of this bill relates to something called "permit by rule." Here's how that essentially will work. I'll try to describe it in simple terms so everybody will understand the implications, because as I said yesterday, sometimes if you don't have a background in this area it can get highly technical and it can, on first blush, look like it isn't a problem. Why not cut red tape here? Why not make it easier in some cases? I agree; in some cases this could make sense.

What it means is that the government will give the public 30 days of notice of which class of businesses it wants to exempt from approvals. Essentially, what they want to do is allow permit by rule, and what it means in certain situations -- it's kind of like a cookbook; I think that's the best way to describe it. It's a cookbook for industry to follow. It says that if you follow those rules just like a recipe, you no longer need approval for your specific undertaking. The ministry, given that, won't be able to keep track of which companies and industries are setting themselves up in a specific area.

This plan limits public input and public consultation. I would say it flies in the face of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which has already been downgraded under Bill 26 and other moves. This actually flies in the face of more public consultation and involvement in the environmental protection process. It does not give our communities or the public the opportunity to have any say in whether a polluting company is given approval to proceed with an undertaking.

I see that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment is here today and I hope he will listen carefully to my remarks. I don't know if he's listening to me, but I believe that there are environmentalists and some of the critics here in the House who actually have some good ideas as to the kinds of changes that need to be made. It needs to be pointed out that this is not innocuous and that this is yet again another example of this government hurting communities.

To tell communities, "You're going to have even less say in environmental protection, that we're going to give you less say than you have now on what might be in your backyard," that is against communities, against families and against environmental protection.

I recall that when we were in government the bureaucrats did bring this forward, but we rejected it because we decided that the public should have a right to participate in discussions that affect their environment and their community. One of the major problems with this aspect of the bill is that the government hasn't even bothered to come clean with the public as to which industrial sectors will be exempt from approvals with this legislation. This is unbelievable.

The government is saying to us, and saying to people who happen to have picked this up on the environmental registry and got the information, achieved it: "We want to do this, but don't worry. It'll be just little, insignificant things." But when we ask for a list, they don't have it.

When this bill was tabled we asked for a list of industrial sectors. We were told they couldn't provide such a list. We were told, however, that the first phase can be found in the responsive environmental deregulation package. But this is not good enough; there is not a complete list of sectors that will be affected. I find it interesting that the new minister and the previous minister, when asked, when pressed to give us a list, said, "We don't have it yet, but use things like restaurants," which in most people's minds -- well, they could agree that permit by rule might be okay for restaurants because they're generally in a business

section anyway; you don't find a lot of restaurants plunked down in communities. However, in my riding there are a lot of restaurants abutting residential areas, so even restaurants in some cases can be a problem. However, when pressed, we were told that it could involve paint shops or dry-cleaners. These particular industries can cause severe problems in neighbourhoods, and those are to be considered as innocuous, as easy ones, ones that should be given permit by rule.

But we don't have a complete list, so we want the government to come forward today and I'm hoping the parliamentary assistant by now has been given a complete list so we at least know what we're talking about today. We don't want these kinds of environmental deregulation happening in secret and asking us to vote for it, asking the community to trust them, given the record to date. We don't even know what industries they're talking about here.

The former minister, as I said, told us that the bill could apply to dry-cleaners, who do use a variety of dangerous cancer-causing chemicals and other substances that create smog and polluted air, and I don't need again to go into detail about the problems we have in Metro Toronto with smog. I presume Hamilton has such problems, and all the other urban areas. It's a major problem and yet that's one of the ones that the government is saying easily can fit under this permit by rule.

She also said it could apply to autobody paint shops. These paint shops emit in some cases very dangerous chemicals.

I think the major concern for me is that permit by rule does not take into account the cumulative effect of a number of industries locating in a specific area. When you've got permit by rule, the cookbook, and you can show to the ministry that you've got the recipe all down, that's all you have to do. You can set up your paint shop or whatever it may be in a community without anybody knowing about it.

I come back again to the point I made earlier about the fact that therefore the community won't know about it, will have no information, will have no opportunity to come forward and say: "Okay, maybe in a certain location this paint shop would not be a problem. However, we've got five others because we live close to an industrial area. The cumulative effect is too much." There will be no opportunity to do that.

Those are some examples, and just a very few examples, the ones that the previous minister said would be included under this permit by rule thing. We don't know about the others.

Let's face it: The ministry needs this legislation because the government is getting out of the business of environmental protection. Day after day after day we see yet again, and sometimes very quietly, regulations being changed and removed -- not part of these bills that we at least get some chance to participate in and speak to. Day after day there's something else being taken off the books, being deregulated.

The massive cuts brought on by this government to finance the tax cut, which I talked about yesterday, mean that there are fewer ministry employees in the field. There simply are not the numbers any more to monitor and give the approvals, and I don't care how many times the government says it, people will not be fooled by this.

In my neighbourhood of Riverdale alone, in the south Riverdale part, over the years, because it's in an industrial area, there have been numerous problems, noise and odour. Under another bill, this government has got out of that business altogether and has shifted over to municipalities. People in my neighbourhood have relied for years and years on the Ministry of Environment to deal with severe problems around noise and odour, particularly odour.

There have been numerous other problems in the community as well, and over the years, working with the Ministry of Environment -- not always easy; sometimes it's taken years to get things closed down, if necessary, or relocated -- we have had people there to come out and measure the odour and help us out.

The problem with downloading that on to municipalities, especially with the transfer cuts this government has also inflicted, is that this is not going to be a priority for most municipalities given the fact that they gave to make some tough choices with their limited budget.

What this is about -- let's be honest about it, as I said yesterday -- is simply about doing less. The government often repeated the mantra, "Doing better with less," but let's be clear, let's be really clear: It simply is about doing less. That means that children will feel the effects for generations to come, and that's what we have to bear in mind here.

I see the Minister of Health is with us today, which makes me very happy, because the Minister of Health should pay attention to what is happening. I know he's busy now fighting with the doctors and posturing with the doctors, but he should be aware that these environmental decisions that are being made by one other arm of his government are actually doing things that are going to affect the health of the people of Ontario, which just in pure economic terms means that the cost of health care is going to go up.

We already know there's more asthma and lung-related, respiratory-related illnesses as a result of smog. Has this government done anything? No. But the Minister of Health should listen carefully and be a champion. If nobody else in that government, including the Minister of Environment, will be a champion and speak up for environmental protection at the cabinet table, the Minister of Health has a vested interest in doing that.

I will say that this legislation is good news to the polluters of the province. I guess that's one of the reasons they've contributed to the Tory election campaign, in great numbers I may add. The only way polluters can get into trouble is if they're caught breaking the rules. But how is it going to happen when the government doesn't even know that the activity is taking place? More important, how will the ministry have the staff to police everything that's going on? They won't. With the 35% cuts that are already in place, and we suspect more to come, I can guarantee you that the polluters have figured that out.

The government continues to protest and say, "Oh, we just need to cut red tape and make it more efficient," but many of the permits that were issued before weren't needed. That's what they say, that they weren't needed. The problems were covered by municipal property standards or health regulations or whatever. In some cases they're right, there's no doubt about that. It's no problem trying to find those, consulting with the community, all who have concerns about this and really carefully weeding out the ones that did need to be taken off the books or changed.

But why, then, is the government exempting itself from any liability that may arise from this deregulation? If they're so confident that these measures will not be harmful, will not hurt the environment, will not hurt our communities, why are they doing that? That is a very good question, which has not been answered. Why are they saying, "We won't be responsible for the consequences of our actions"? If the government is so sure that the regulations that it's gutting aren't needed, why won't it prove that and put its money where its mouth is? Why won't it at least let the poor citizen who may suffer because of its negligence get some justice through the courts? They have said no.

If some catastrophe or even small event takes place because of this deregulation, this permit by rule, the poor citizen who is affected by this has no recourse. I find this passing strange for a government that says it cares about individual property rights to say to people: "If our actions hurt you in any way, too bad, go away. We're not going to let you take us to court. We're not going to compensate you in any way."

I've talked a bit about the fact that the government has failed to tell us which categories of businesses will get the exemptions. It assures us that the exemptions will be minor and won't involve any serious polluting activity. But they've left the exemption so wide open that, according to Rick Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association -- and get this, Mr Speaker, because it is very important -- as the bill is now written, the bill will let the government exempt virtually anyone or anything from any legislative or regulatory requirements under the Environmental Protection Act or the Ontario Water Resources Act. This is indeed very scary and, I would say, arrogant.

We obviously need public hearings on this bill. If the government did not mean in its legislation to allow itself to let anyone or anything be exempted, then surely the public needs to have a say about what they think should be on that list, if anything, and make sure that the legislation is amended to make sure that this indeed cannot happen, that a garbage incinerator, or a dump -- and some of you here in this room today may live in an area which could be affected. I would like to think that's not the government's intention, but the way the bill is written now, that is indeed the situation.

We need public hearings and we need the government to come clean and tell the people of this province which businesses they're going to exempt and which activities they're going to exempt. Will it be incinerators? I hope the answer is no. Will it be chemical plants? I hope the answer is no. But we don't know. They haven't said. They won't give us a list. So you've got wide-open legislation and we haven't been provided with a list.

This government cannot be trusted when it comes to environmental protection, and that's part of the problem with the bill as it's now worded. We have to make sure, if the government does not intend the way this bill is worded, we need to know that this government does not have the legislative authority under certain circumstances to exempt some major environmental undertaking which could have a huge impact on the community.

I am going to talk a minute about the aspect that the government can't be trusted when it comes to environmental protection. I talked yesterday about much of the anti-environment deregulation cutting that's already happened within the Ministry of the Environment but also in the Ministry of Natural Resources. When you put the two together, it truly is catastrophic in the long run.

I have some documents here. Some environmental groups and lawyers and policy analysts have responded to this bill and the other deregulation bill -- and let me add again, they are part and parcel of the same package, so you have to deal with them at the same time. In fact this bill we're discussing today refers -- we were told to refer to the other bill about deregulation to see the list of some of the things which might come under permit by rule.

I have a document here that was written in response by a group called Stop Environmental Deregulation in Canada. This is a group mainly of students who have become extremely alarmed about this government's anti-environment agenda. They head their submission -- I believe they did a press conference on this -- the heading of their document is, and I'm reading this: "Gutting Environmental Protection: The Harris Government is Lying about its Deregulatory Agenda."

Their table of contents is: "

(1) Harris government lies;

(2) A missed opportunity;

(3) What industry wants...industry gets;

(4) Proposed deregulation in Responsive Environmental Protection;

(5) SEDIC Recommendations;

(6) About Stop Environmental Deregulation in Canada."

In their

summary they make "the following comments on the regulatory `reform' consultation paper":

"

(1) The Harris government says it wants to protect the environment but has taken a large number of fiscal and legislative actions which weaken environmental protection.

"

(2) As a result, Ontario citizens must be suspicious when the consultation paper says the proposed regulatory changes will only improve efficiency and not lower standards. It is impossible for them to participate in good faith in a genuine regulatory reform exercise.

"

(3) In fact, the objective of the consultation process is not genuine regulatory reform. Instead, the proposals add up to three forms of deregulation: defunding environmental protection (on which the paper is silent); replacing law with volunteerism; lower standards."

A little later on this group talks about, and again I am reading this from their paper under the heading, "

(1) Harris Government Lies":

"Premier Harris, as noted in the letter to the editor reproduced above" -- which I'm going to read in a minute because I think it's of great interest to the members in this House today -- "has been quoted as saying, `Protecting the environment for the future generations ranks equally with us as the fiscal situation for future generations.'"

It was Mike Harris who said that. Similarly the consultation paper states, "The fundamental objective of MOEE's regulatory reform is to ensure continued human health and safety and environmental protection while eliminating red tape, obsolete regulations and simplifying the system in order to promote economic growth and jobs.

"Unfortunately neither statement is true."

Another very important aspect of the document by this group deals with what they call "A missed opportunity," and I think this is very important because this group is saying that they have no objections to true regulatory reform. I quote again briefly:

"Because the Harris government will not admit to what it is doing, Ontario citizens cannot work with it in good faith to improve regulatory efficiency. The 1996 consultation paper, Responsive Environmental Protection, therefore represents a missed opportunity. All stakeholders -- industry, environmentalists, government officials and members of the interested public -- agree that environmental regulation should be as efficient as possible. We should protect the environment at the lowest possible cost to industry, government and the taxpayer.

Updating and amending environmental regulations to improve efficiency without lowering the standards they set is a worthwhile exercise.... Because of the record of the Harris government, they must be suspicious that what is presented as regulatory reform is in fact environmental deregulation."

The point they're trying to make is that there is goodwill out there with the so-called special-interest groups, the environmentalists. To me it's very weird to refer to environmental groups as special-interest. Their special interest is protecting our health in the community, the population at large, yet somehow the bankers and big businesses that want to make more and more money are not referred to as special-interest by this government.

I'm just going to read one more portion of this document because I think it's a very important element of what is in this government document that we're debating today, which is truly work going in the wrong direction. This is moving from law to self-regulation. I'll read again from the document:

"Many of the industry submissions called for the move from command and control regulation to voluntary and self-regulation, as advocated by the consultation paper. To do so is to put the fox to guard the chicken coop. To achieve its goal of competitiveness and profit maximization, any given business firm must operate at the lowest possible cost. One way it does that is to `externalize' costs of waste and pollution so they are paid by the larger society and not the firm. Prior to the establishment of the modern regulatory system, firms in Ontario spent almost nothing on pollution prevention or proper waste disposal. Because we now have laws which are enforced, that is no longer the case."

What is being said here is that going in this direction to volunteerism means we're going back to the bad old days when polluters, big businesses that polluted, could externalize the cost so the taxpayers ended up paying for it. It's a very dangerous direction to be going in. I regret that there's talk also of the federal Liberal government going in the same direction.

To carry on with my concerns and reasons -- and this government has given us so many ample reasons to know it can't be trusted with the environment -- I'm going to give you some more examples of situations that have happened recently which I think all members of this House should be concerned about, because it could happen to them in their communities.

The government has allowed Philip Environmental to go ahead with its Taro landfill without an environmental assessment hearing. Despite major community concern, they have funded the Red Hill Creek Expressway, plowing through vital green space in east Hamilton. They have fired progressive appointees. They have cut the budget of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. They have put forward new proposals to eliminate packaging reduction requirements for businesses. They've watered down sulphur content rules and allowed pulp and paper companies to keep pouring chlorine into our water. The list goes on and on.

I spoke about some of them yesterday. They removed the ban on new municipal garbage incinerators. They've stopped funding the blue box. Of course, they've ended the Intervenor Funding Project Act, which means that the public will not have the same kind of consultation and ability to participate in a meaningful way in hearings. It's always nice to muzzle your opponents by taking away their funding, and this government is very good at that. The major thrust throughout all of this deregulation is to let the polluters run the show.

I'm going to talk about a few other aspects of the bill that I find problematic. Another thing the bill does is to get rid of the Environmental Compensation Corp. The ECC is a payor of last resort when spills happen and the culprit can't be found. It's true that the ECC has paid out very little money in recent years. I find it a little strange in a way for that to be a reason to get rid of a corporation that's actually not having to pay out that much money. It's true, therefore, that maybe some restructuring would be important to do, but to get rid of it means that some people will be left holding the bag.

They will have damage happen to them or their property and nobody will compensate them. Given the other changes the government has made, given its gutting of the rules and the ability of the ministry to enforce them, it is likely that more and more people will be found in the lurch.

I have to wonder if that is the real reason why they have abandoned this program, because right now it has been putting out so very little money, but for the same reason within this bill they're taking away the ability for people to sue as a result of other deregulation, the permit by rule. This is the same thing. They expect that there will be more claims for compensation, because when you look at that in the context of the limited staff and the permit by rule, the government will have far less ability to keep track of who's where in what community.

If something does happen, if a spill does happen, I expect it will be harder to find the culprits to pay, and therefore the cost to government could go way up. I think that's the real reason this has been taken away.

The ECC, though, also played an important role in advising the public about spills and about their rights. Many of the people they've helped are people who've tried to clean up or contain spills and been left with liability. The corporation acted in other ways, not just to compensate, but to help track down the culprits and to help people, to steer them in the right direction.

On the repeal of the Ontario Waste Management Corp, that's an interesting one because we support the repeal, obviously, in view of the fact that the corporation no longer exists anyway. It's gone. The government cancelled it a while ago. There was a hearing for many years which we all know about under the OWMC; that's why it was created, to determine how to deal with hazardous waste. At the end of the day -- the proposal before them was a very complex one that took years -- it was determined that this was not the right direction to go. So it makes sense to repeal this corporation.

However, after our government decided not to proceed with the OWMC, which was rejected by the joint board, we made a decision to maintain the OWMC as a vehicle to promote our hazardous waste reduction strategy. OWMC was used to research and promote hazardous waste 3Rs and research into new technologies.

One of the first things this government did was to axe the OWMC and the hazardous waste reduction strategy. Now the government has no plans whatsoever to deal with hazardous waste. All the funding has been pulled out for hazardous waste reduction and disposal. But we should be very clear about this, and the government should be aware if it isn't: We own, the Ontario government owns, part of the problem on the issue.

Take the issue of PCBs. There are approximately 100,000 tonnes of PCBs in storage around the province. Two thirds of this total are owned by the Ontario government. There are PCBs across the street in the Whitney Block, by the way. I don't know if the parliamentary assistant was aware of that.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I know all about it.

Ms Churley: He knows all about it, he says. There may even be PCBs stored here in this building. I don't know. But we know there are across the street.

Our government had committed several million dollars to begin to take care of this problem. We were going to commercially demonstrate non-incineration technologies to dispose of provincially owned PCB waste. In fact, members here might not be aware -- I'm sure the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment would know this, but maybe others don't -- that the province is a signatory to the Canada-Ontario agreement. You know about that?

Under this agreement, the province has a responsibility to decommission 90% of the high-level PCBs, destroy 50% of the high-level PCB waste now in storage and accelerate the destruction of low-level PCB waste by the year 2000. That's a pretty tall order.

All the programs that were in place -- I think he's saying, "No problem" -- are gone. All the funding which was in place is gone. I don't see how the government can keep its commitment under this Canada-Ontario agreement. You don't have a plan. They don't have a plan on how to meet their international commitment and they don't have the money set aside to meet their international commitment.

Members might know that there is an Ontario company in Rockwood, Ontario, near the former minister's riding that has produced a non-incineration technology to destroy PCBs and other hazardous waste. The company, which you may have heard of, Eco Logic, has contacts in several countries around the world. I believe it was just yesterday -- at least it was in the last couple of days -- the federal cabinet approved a plan to open the border to PCB export. This is very bad news. This is the federal Liberals. I must say that I'm not right now talking about the Tory government here.

The federal Liberals have agreed to allow PCBs to go across the border. But this is very bad news for companies like Eco Logic. It's very bad news for jobs in the environmental protection sector.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Did you mention they're from Wellington?

Ms Churley: They're from Wellington. The member for Wellington is here and he says they're from Wellington, so you should start lobbying your federal member, who I presume is a Liberal.

Mr Arnott: She is.

Ms Churley: She is a Liberal. We should all lobby, but particularly the member for Wellington. This is extremely innovative technology which we need to be promoting in Ontario and indeed in Canada. But what this means is that there will be no incentive, if you're just going to ship the stuff across the border, for companies like Eco Logic to work in this country and I think it's a shame. I'm not sure why the decision was made, but it's a bad decision.

I come back to the government here because we're talking about your bill today and a very serious problem. You do not have plans to deal with hazardous waste. You've cancelled all of the funding, the 3Rs program through the OWMC household hazardous waste programs and product stewardship agreement. All of that is gone. This government has also cancelled funding to the Ontario Waste Exchange, a program where companies could at least exchange their waste; the waste of one company, as it turned out, may in fact be the feedstock for another company. That program is gone.

In fact, when the government took office, the OWMC was working on a consultation to bring all stakeholders together to find a way to meet nationally accepted reduction targets of 50% by the year 2000. Yet when the OWMC was cancelled, they failed to bring in a mechanism to fully implement a hazardous waste strategy.

The government also has cut off grants to businesses in the green industry sector, which were part of the solution. Over a five-year period our government provided $5 million in support of new hazardous waste treatment technologies. In 1995-96 and 1996-97, we had committed $5 million per year in loans and, in some cases, grants which were directed to hazardous waste treatment.

But again this is gone. It's not a priority to this government. What is going to happen to all this hazardous waste being produced in our environment? The bottom line is you've dismantled the province's waste reduction strategy. You have nothing in place, you've cancelled the OWMC and all the work they were doing on calling on an amendment to be made in this bill that if not reinstating the OWMC, to build some kind of program that helps with the reduction of hazardous waste in Ontario -- very important.

In the long run if the government doesn't invest some money into finding ways to deal with hazardous waste in our communities, again this comes back to the fact that our children, your children and grandkids will be paying a lot more than we'd pay for it today as we try to develop new technologies and try to find ways to deal with the existing hazardous waste.

Bill 57 also expands the ministry's authority to require fees for permit approvals applications, record registration information requests and other matters. Making the polluter pay is a good idea, although I just had a very interesting experience in my community in south Riverdale. You may have read about it.

I sent a letter to the Minister of Environment inviting him to come to a meeting in our community about the Canada Metal plant which had been sued by the government for, I think, the $8 million clean-up cost in south Riverdale because the Canada Metal plant had contributed in a large part to serious high levels of lead in the soil which actually affected the health of the kids who lived in that area.

An interesting development lately: The new government just very recently decided that they were going to let the company off the hook for $8 million, which means the taxpayers who've already paid for the cleanup because it had to be done -- but now they've been let off the hook, the polluter in that case is not paying for that cleanup. That's setting a very bad precedent and seems to go against the grain of what this government has said, that the taxpayer should not pick up the tab.

Making the polluter pay is good, but what is more worrisome is that fees may become a barrier to those legitimately seeking information from the government. The government has already drawn the criticism of the information commissioner for the imposition of often hefty fees for requests under the freedom of information and privacy act.

The whole idea of making the polluter pay, and the government having the ability to require fees for these permits and approval applications and all those things related to information requests and other matters, in some areas is a very good idea, but there are some problems with it. I think it would be a good idea here for me to refer to an extremely well-written analysis of this bill, Bill 57, by Rick Lindgren from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. He goes through the bill and analyses each section, and he has something to say about the fees and permits.

What he would like to see is that these funds should be designated to an environmental fund. In other words, "Revenue generated under the new fee regime may help reduce the provincial deficit, but there is no guarantee that any of the revenue will be used to maintain the MOEE's environmental protection program."

I know, from havi