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

November 4, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L055a - Wed 4 Nov 1998 / Mer 4 Nov 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

HOMELESSNESS

ALBERTO FUJIMORI

SIKH RELIGION

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

CRIMINAL SENTENCING

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

COLLÈGE BORÉAL

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

REMEMBRANCE DAY

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

DEFERRED VOTES

NORTHERN SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES PUBLICS DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

DRUG USE IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRUCKING SAFETY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

PROSTATE CANCER

PALLIATIVE CARE

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

PROSTATE CANCER

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA / LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement today is directed to the Premier, and it's regarding the lack of psychiatric services in my region. I have to ask if anybody is really listening out there, because it sure doesn't seem to be that way.

Speaker, I have raised this issue in this House on a good number of occasions and you will know that. I have to tell the Premier and the Minister of Health that this issue is not going away. In northwestern Ontario we still, believe it or not, have psychiatric patients being locked up in jail. I just don't know how to get that through to the Premier.

Let me tell you what Mark Balcaen, the executive director of the Lake of the Woods hospital, had to say in his letter to the Premier. He said, "There is a growing frustration over the lack of response from the Ministry of Health for on-call coverage for psychiatry."

He goes on to say:

"Frustration stems from the delay in receiving any word on recommendations following a review of psychiatric services conducted by a consultant hired by the ministry. The review took place June 30."

Here we are on November 4 - still no psychiatric on-call services.

When one of the boards questioned the administrator about where the issue was going, he said it had been raised many times. He goes on to say, "The Premier seems to have lit a fire under the Minister of Health and we are hopeful" that some activity will resolve issues of health care.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm making a statement on behalf of Ted Kapusta. Ted was injured in February 1985. His left hand was amputated, leaving only a thumb. The plant closed in 1989. He went to UIC, and when it ran out they put him back to the Workers' Compensation Board. At the WCB, he was retrained as a computer operator and had one job placement in 1994. That lasted as long as the WCB would pay the employer. He has applied for jobs and has written letters and not received one interview.

He gets a $600-a-month pension. He has lived for 20 years in his apartment and pays $520 a month rent. He has survived for several years with the help of family. His mother is also an injured worker on 60% pension and on dialysis.

This is an example of how homelessness is not only about people who are discharged from psychiatric hospitals or have problems with substance abuse.

He can't get family benefits because he's not medically unemployable. He cannot get social housing because the Harris government has stopped producing social housing and the waiting list is years long. He can't get a job, because the WCB no longer gives any active help and the Harris government has repealed employment equity.

He says:

"Mr Harris, your policies did this to me and are doing it to thousands of other ordinary Ontarians. I thought you represented all of us. Please explain this to me because I do not understand.

"Formerly of Etobicoke; now homeless."

ALBERTO FUJIMORI

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): On Thursday, October 29, I had the distinct honour of meeting with Mr Alberto Fujimori, the President of Peru, at which time I welcomed him on behalf of the Premier and the province of Ontario.

This was the first official visit of a Peruvian president to Canada. Yes, he was here for consultation during the hostage crisis, which he settled typically with his do-it style, but this was the first in an official capacity.

President Fujimori's leadership since 1990 and his "see a problem - fix it" attitude have seen great strides in health, education, welfare and diplomacy. His willingness to enter into talks with Ecuador and solve a 170-year-old border dispute is evidence of his wish to fight poverty rather than his neighbours. This accord was signed less than two weeks ago.

His achievements are too many to list with the time allotted, but through various reforms and privatization - Hydro Peru, Telephone Peru and the old age pension plan - the President has led Peru to growth of 41% since 1993, the highest in Latin America. Exports grew by 92%, and inflation dropped from 7,650% to 6.5% in 1997.

A great number of President Fujimori's initiatives parallel the Common Sense Revolution, and the same positive results are either evident or expected.

All these factors will only mean a greater accord between Peru and Canada.

SIKH RELIGION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Today marks an important date for members of Ontario's Sikh community. They join Sikhs all over the world in observing the holiest day on their religious calendar. This is the anniversary of the birth of Guru Nanak Dev, who was born on this day in 1469 in the village of Rai Bhoe Ki Talwandi, Pakistan.

Guru Nanak Dev founded a religion that is today practised by more than 15 million people worldwide and several hundred thousand people in Canada.

Sikhism, as Guru Nanak Dev founded it and as it is practised today, is a way of life based on firm conviction. It seeks universal brotherhood. Its object is to create spiritual kinship and unity among all peoples. It believes that salvation is possible for all through devotion to God and a moral, responsible and selfless lifestyle.

Because of their strong beliefs and values, the more than 200,000 Sikhs in Ontario have made, and continue to make, strong contributions to our province. An education-minded people with an irresistible thirst for knowledge, they excel in all of the professional fields. They strongly believe in the equality of men and women of all races. They are family-oriented and self-sufficient. They give generously to their own institutions and to causes in the broader society.

Let us today reflect on the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev, who proclaimed the oneness of all peoples, religions and cultures, and let me say that it is a great privilege for me personally and for the Liberal Party of Ontario to recognize this very important day and this very important people.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Speaker, I rise today to share with you, with my colleagues in this place and the people out there across Ontario how shocked I was yesterday at the revelation in the auditor's report about the Andersen contract and this government and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

This is a continuation of the unrelenting attack on the poor in this province.

When you consider the report of the Centre for Social Justice last week, which spoke of the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and its reference to the government's role in the widening of that gap, this is a shocking indictment of this government's deliberate, well-orchestrated, thoughtful and planned attack on the poor, those who are the most marginalized and vulnerable in our province, starting with the reduction of their income by 22%, the taking away of the nutritional supplement for pregnant mothers, the shutdown of all support and counselling opportunities.

And now this: a contract with a high-priced, American gun-for-hire corporation to suck even more money out of the pockets of the poor and the communities they live in.

This is shameful. This is disgraceful. This is immoral and unethical. It is not in keeping with the Canadian story in any way, shape or form. This government should resign.

CRIMINAL SENTENCING

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Bill C-251,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, introduced in the federal House of Commons by Albina Guarnieri from Mississauga East, recently passed second reading with all-party support.

This bill provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits sexual assault against multiple victims or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

It also provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first- or second-degree murder is not eligible for parole until the person has served, in addition to the portion of sentence that the person must serve for murder, one third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same events or that the person is already serving.

The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before that person is eligible for parole.

This bill will finally put to an end the volume discounts for murderers and rapists. It recognizes that each sentence must apply to a specific crime and that the horror suffered by the victim is not less because they were the second, third or fourth victim. It is time that justice was found for the victims and not the predators in our society.

I urge the members of this House to contact their federal counterparts and -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention a matter which I know will be of interest to you. In fact I have a copy for you.

I have a news release from the Queen's Alma Mater Society, which represents 11,000 undergraduate students at Queen's, in which they express their outrage and disappointment with the member for Nepean, and I must say that I share their disappointment as well.

Let me read to you an excerpt from this release:

"While" David "Caplan," member for Oriole, "asked the question" about OSAP funding "Baird held up a sign that read `Mom, send money.'"

Tom Stanley, president of the QAMS, called the sign a disgrace. I quote:

"Mr Baird's insensitivity to students in need was absolutely disgraceful. We had a student there who is going to have to drop out of school in January if he doesn't receive financial assistance. Mr Baird's arrogance was in very poor taste."

Baird's sign-waving comes on the heels of another insensitive comment by Premier Mike Harris this week in St Catharines. When asked a question about student debt in Ontario the Premier said, "They'll just have to put off buying the BMW for one more year."

These comments are typical of the disregard and contempt that Harris and company have for the people and students of Ontario.

It's time the member for Nepean apologized to Queen's students and to all the students in Ontario. It's time that this Premier and the member for Nepean understood that not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Shame on the Premier, shame on the member for Nepean.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All right, come to order, members for Windsor-Walkerville, Oriole, Yorkview.

COLLÈGE BORÉAL

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The acting president of Collège Boréal in Sudbury recently wrote to me to describe the serious funding shortfall now facing the college.

This college, like the two other French colleges in Ontario, receives money from the official languages in education program. The program began in 1989 to help the startup of La Cité collégiale in Ottawa. In 1993 our NDP government renewed the Canada-Ontario agreement and invested significant funds in the creation of Collège Boréal and College du Grand Lacs in Niagara.

The terms of that agreement ended on March 31. Negotiations between the federal Liberal government and the provincial Conservative government should have begun long before that to ensure ongoing support to the new colleges.

Instead, negotiations only began in September. The first thing that happened was the Chrétien Liberal government announced it would not contribute any funds to the three colleges this year. The Harris government said it wouldn't contribute either if Ottawa was not involved. We now have a situation where Collège Boréal is short $2.8 million this year and will have to cut programs in the middle of the school year to make ends meet. All three colleges have requested emergency funding from the federal Liberals and provincial Conservatives. I understand that to date there has been no positive reply to this request.

This situation is ridiculous. If the Chrétien and Harris governments are truly committed to these three French colleges, then both governments will provide emergency funding and both must renew an agreement that will adequately support these institutions for the next five years.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am particularly concerned about the personal slams that are going on in these 90-second statements. Could you comment on the validity of being able to talk about the member for Nepean as such? I think it was really unorthodox of the member from Kingston to do that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The fact is -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): You can be unorthodox and parliamentary at the same time.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma.

The member has a point of order. She's right. Members' statements aren't meant to include personal attacks. They are meant as statements about their ridings or about goings-on within the province. I will say that was the original plan in, I think, 1985, when they were first introduced. I would only say to the members that they were designed for that and they weren't designed for that kind of partisan take on things. I appreciate the fact that the member brings it forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members in the opposition benches, the standing orders are written very clearly and I will read them if you like, but it's all there.

Mr Wildman: We are not to be partisan? Where do the rules say we are not to be partisan?

The Speaker: The fact is, if you want to read the standing orders, you can. The member has a point of order. I would ask the members to stand by the standing orders.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: No. Of order, possibly.

Mr Gerretsen: And also a point of privilege, both.

The Speaker: For a point of privilege, you have to give it to me an hour before the House sits.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My statement was taken directly from a news release, a press release issued by the AMS, the undergraduate society which represents 11,000 students at Queen's. Every word that I said in there referring to the member for Nepean was taken directly from the quotes that are attributed in this news release.

The Speaker: You know what? I'm not arguing with you with respect to where you got the quotes and I'm not arguing as to how you got them.

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: You ought to be ashamed.

The Speaker: Order. Members for Kingston and The Islands and York-Mackenzie, come to order, please. I'm going to get the standing order and I'll read the standing order in a few moments, and possibly that can help alleviate this concern.

Member for Kingston and The Islands, I'm not questioning whether or not you got it properly. It was properly distributed. I'm only suggesting to you, as the standing orders read, the member for Huron has a proper point of order.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Next week we will observe Remembrance Day in honour of the memory of Canada's courageous war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our rights and freedoms. We will remember all those Canadians who, in the words of John McCrae's poem, "lie in Flanders fields" and in other places where "the poppies blow / Between the crosses, row on row, / That mark our place...."

One of those places is Holland. Students in Holland continuously learn about the historic role Canada played in their country's liberation. Dutch students have a living relationship with that history as they maintain the graves of Canadian soldiers and send tulips to Canada in their honour.

I submit that it is as important for Canadian students to deepen their awareness of the meaning of Remembrance Day. This is why I am today initiating a province-wide petition in partnership with Ontario veterans' associations to develop a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in our education system. This curriculum will help our youth forever remember the courageous memory and sacrifice of Canada's war dead and veterans. I ask all members of the House to support this petition.

I believe the following words of McCrae's poem speak to us and to our youth today:

To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the point you raised earlier about the use of members' statements, I would appreciate it if you would clarify. The reason I raise that is that I think there are many examples of it. Last week in the House, Mr Speaker, you may remember, the member for Halton North referred to the member for Downsview, and it was a similar issue. I do think that we will need clarification from you of what is and is not, in your mind, permissible under members' statements, because there are several.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I appreciate the opportunity, member for Scarborough-Agincourt. Let me just say off the top, I didn't want to get too far into it because the history and tradition of the place has been that a lot of latitude has been provided in members' statements. But when they're brought forward or brought up like the member for Huron did, the Speaker has no alternative then but to interpret the standing orders and the rulings.

Now, I'm working from memory, but the standing order is 31(b), and the ruling was by, I think, Edighoffer. There are four different rulings, so I don't have to work from memory any more; four rulings, two by Speaker Edighoffer and two by Speaker Warner. I can't imagine who Mr Warner was talking about, actually.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): He was talking about you.

The Speaker: "Members' statements should not be used to make personal attacks against any member," cited on April 30, 1986, by Speaker Edighoffer; November 2, 1988, Speaker Edighoffer; November 26, 1990, Speaker Warner; May 27, 1991, Speaker Warner.

Let me say, no side of the House has proven any better than other sides. We know full well that we've taken advantage of the situation on both sides.

Those are the rulings. I've been less than vigilant on it, but now that it has been brought up, now that all members understand it, I'll try to keep a closer eye on it. I appreciate the opportunity.

We have two points of order.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: For clarification, then you're saying that according to the rulings, your ruling and previous rulings, members should not use members' statements for personal attacks against other members but it is in order for us to be partisan.

The Speaker: I would never rule partisanship out of order. If I ruled partisanship out of order, we wouldn't be here, I guess.

No, you're right. Maybe I misspoke myself when I said "partisan." What I meant was personal attacks.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: I repeat that my statement merely reiterated the actions of the member for Nepean -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Kingston and The Islands, please sit down.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): He is going to force you to be a gentleman for 15 minutes.

The Speaker: Member for Brant-Haldimand. Thank you.

I think what I'm trying to point out to you, member for Kingston and The Islands, is that I appreciate where you're coming from on that particular statement, but I'm saying to you that I consider that to be a personal attack, and that's what it comes down to.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You know I've sat in this House for a long period of time -

Mr Wildman: Too long.

Hon Mr Sterling: Yes, some would say too long. I'm particularly concerned, and I always have a concern, when a member challenges another member who is not here. I feel that I must speak on behalf of Mr Baird, who is attending his grandmother's funeral and cannot be here to defend himself.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Phillips: A point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker: Is this a different point of order, member for Scarborough-Agincourt? Are you up on the same point of order?

Mr Phillips: The same point of order. Just to respond to the government House leader, I'd say that last week there was a similar personal attack on one of our members, who was not here, who was not in the House, and so -

The Speaker: Government House leader and member for Scarborough-Agincourt, please take your seats. I think you're both right. There have been incidents on both sides of this House. No one is pure on this issue, so let's just leave it at this. In future we'll deal with it, from this day on. I don't think there's any point in comparing past histories, because they're all checkered.

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to

section V, subsection 21(

a) of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, I rise today on a point of privilege. I believe the rights and privileges granted to me as a duly elected member of the Ontario Legislature have been abused by the government. As a permanent member of the administration of justice committee of the Ontario Legislature, I am charged with the duty to give due consideration to government legislation placed before that committee. Legislation is referred to committees of our Legislature to gather public comment and expert advice in order to give due consideration to each bill. Amendments are then moved based on that knowledge.

When Bill 75, the Alcohol, Gaming, and Charity Funding Public Interest Act, 1996, was being considered by this Legislature and its committee, the government had in its possession a major legal brief commissioned by the Ontario Lottery Corp that offered the opinion that the private operator model of gambling employed by the Ontario government was contrary to the Criminal Code. Chris Hodgson stated in an October 31 Toronto Star

article that, "There are other legal opinions that disagree with that report."

I believe my rights and privileges have been abused by the contempt the government holds for the legislative process. My integrity and the integrity of the legislative process has been corrupted by the government through the withholding of expert opinion from legislative scrutiny. I believe that to feed its voracious appetite for revenues, the government purposely obstructed our free and open legislative process.

While I realize the government is not compelled to provide information to the Legislative Assembly, I believe in this case, when the government's advice was that this bill contradicts the Criminal Code and therefore was possibly an illegal act, that I and all members are now complicit in executing that illegal act. Mr Speaker, therefore I ask you on behalf of all of us who sit in this assembly to consider my point and render a decision.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to say first off that I appreciate the opportunity you've given me an hour beforehand to review your point of privilege. Let me state very clearly that there are only two ways I can entertain that point of privilege. The two ways are if this Legislature directed the minister to provide that legal opinion to this place or the committee and he didn't do that; or if the committee itself directed the minister to provide this to them and he didn't do that and the committee voted to take it to this House.

Those are the only two ways, in my opinion, that I can see that would allow me to even entertain that point of privilege. Seeing that neither of those things happened, it's an issue that you must take up at committee. If you take it up at committee and a majority of members of committee believe and feel the same way you do and then vote a majority to bring it to this House, I can seize control of the issue. Unless that happens, I have no way of dealing with it.

Once again, I want to thank you for bringing forward that early.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I know. I'm with you on that one.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's bring your child to work day today. If anyone has brought their child to work today, I think it's important that we recognize them; otherwise, if I don't, we'll be breaking up the meeting all day. I want to introduce Mr Michael Marchese in the gallery, who is here with his father, working very hard, I'm sure. In the back we've got Mr Liam McGuinty. Is he still here? He came with his dad.

Anybody else? OK, those are the two. If any more come in, you're more than welcome to stand up and introduce them. I see the member for Oxford motioning. Please go ahead.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I would like to introduce my daughter, Megan, who is on the other side.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You know what? Next time you have that trouble I'll put her in the Speaker's gallery. It's not a problem.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 11th report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Mr Patten moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act / Projet de loi 78, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé mentale.

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

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): This bill,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act, is an attempt to help those persons who have serious mental illnesses and who have had a revolving-door experience, with often sad and tragic results. The intent is to provide them and their families with the best possible supervision, care and treatment while balancing their medical needs and rights with the public at large.

DEFERRED VOTES

NORTHERN SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES PUBLICS DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 12,

An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery / Projet de loi 12, Loi visant à offrir aux résidents du Nord plus de choix et de souplesse dans la mise en place de mécanismes de prestation des services qui tiennent compte de la situation unique du Nord de l'Ontario et à permettre l'accroissement de l'efficience et de la responsabilité en ce qui concerne la prestation des services à l'échelle régionale.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1401 to 1406.

The Speaker: All those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Boushy, Dave

Boyd, Marion

Carr, Gary

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Blain K.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Pouliot, Gilles

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

The Speaker: All those opposed please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 23.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. Earlier today your boss, Mike Harris, made a stunning public admission. He said it was true that he had broken his promise, that he had failed to keep his word when it came to the matter of health care in Ontario. To be more specific, he said it was absolutely true that he failed to keep his promise about not closing hospitals in Ontario. He specifically said that today publicly.

You tell me, Minister, why should anybody in this province today rely on anything that you or the Premier is about to commit to in terms of health care for purposes of the next provincial election? He broke his promise in the past; there is every reasonable expectation that he will continue to do so in the future. Why should we believe him?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Earlier today the Premier did speak to the Ontario Hospital Association, and he pointed out that when he was elected Premier he had the opportunity to review approximately 60 reports that had been provided for our government by district health councils and others. Of particular note was the one that came from the Toronto District Health Council, which indicated there was a need to eliminate some 10 hospitals. There was also an indication that a separate commission should be set up.

The Premier indicated that certainly, after having very carefully considered all the input that had been provided by people throughout the province, many of them urging that hospitals in their communities be merged and closed, we decided to set up the commission, an arm's-length body that would have the opportunity to respond to some of these -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, many Ontarians relied on Mike Harris at the time of the last provincial election when he said that he would not close hospitals. You've decided that the best defence is to be offensive. He broke his word. He did not keep his promise. Why should we believe you now when you tell us that you're going to act in the interests of Ontarians with respect to their health care? That man said he wasn't going to close our hospitals; he's closing 45. Why should we believe you now?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our Premier and our government have always indicated that we want to do everything we possibly can to strengthen health services in Ontario. We want to make sure that we bring services close to home, we want to make sure that we provide the services at every stage in the individual's life, and that is exactly what we are doing. We, as you know, have created more dialysis centres throughout this province in order that people who formerly had to drive an hour or two or three for four hours of dialysis a day can now receive dialysis in their own communities.

We saw this last week when we travelled to Woodstock. We met one young woman who had been receiving dialysis since age 12 and who was forced to temporarily stop her studies, who now was receiving dialysis services in her own community of Woodstock and wasn't being required to drive to London every day. These are the stories that we have heard, and that is the reason that we are doing everything we can to strengthen our health services.

Mr McGuinty: Mike Harris broke his promise. He failed to keep his word and Ontarians are paying the price.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Public confidence in public health care is at an all-time low in Ontario today and that's a direct result of Mike Harris breaking his promise.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members on the government side. I think we should be able to hear his question.

Mr McGuinty: Waiting lists in this province are at an all-time high. People are stacked up in hospital corridors. Ambulances are being redirected from hospital to hospital. We've got people desperately trying to figure out a way to jump the queue so they can get their surgery or their diagnosis in a timely way. That's a direct result of Mike Harris's failure to safeguard health care for Ontarians.

Today he publicly admitted for the first time that he broke his promise, that he failed to live up to his word. I ask you one more time: Why should we believe you and, more importantly, why should we believe Mike Harris when he tells us that he's got health care and the interests of Ontarians at heart in terms of the next provincial election?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would say that our Premier is the one individual who actually has safeguarded health care. In fact we have increased our spending -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, our Premier is the only one to safeguard our health care in this province. We have increased health care funding from $17.4 billion to almost $19 billion this year, despite the fact that your federal colleagues have taken away, cut, slashed, about $2.5 billion in health and social transfer payments.

We are proud of our record and we will do everything we possibly can to continue to strengthen health services in this province. We are responding to the 60 reports we had. We are moving forward to provide services in communities whether it's mental health, dialysis, building new cardiac centres, cancer centres, focusing on substance abuse, introducing Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, pre-school -

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. New question, official opposition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Minister of Education: Over the past couple of days I have been spending time visiting community schools that are on the Mike Harris hit list. I've been talking to parents, students, teachers and principals.

I asked you yesterday if you would not accompany me, visit those schools and learn first-hand that community schools are a lot more than square footage, the cost of heating, the cost of lighting. They're the heart and soul of a community, and you have unleashed something the likes of which you have never experienced. Trust me on this one.

I have a very simple question for you, Minister: Will you set aside that ridiculous funding formula that bears no relationship whatsoever to the value of community schools in our communities?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will say that the previous government asked a former Liberal cabinet minister, John Sweeney -

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: You do remember John Sweeney, a very well respected member of this House - to look at a number of issues around schools in Ontario. One of the observations that Mr Sweeney made was that too much of the money was being spent outside the classroom, about half of the money. This is a former Liberal member commissioned by the NDP. Too much money was spent outside the classroom.

We happen to agree, so the approach of this government is to focus the monies in the classroom; to insist on a reduction of funds going outside of the classroom - waste, administration - and focus that money in the classroom to ensure an excellent opportunity for a better-quality education for all the children in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Parents and students regularly ask: "What advice does the Minister of Education have for us? What advice does the man who is closing our schools have for us?" I tell them, "What he has said is that you should cut back on your heating and your lighting and your cleaning expenses." In order to implement that policy, I'm just wondering if, as part of standard issue now for Ontario students, we might not provide them with a scrub brush to do their own cleaning, a candle that does both heating and lighting -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The member for Ottawa South says to trust him on this one. Is there any doubt about trust when stunts like this are pulled in the Legislature, politicizing a most serious issue faced by communities and parents?

I would say to those parents, fight the Nyberg list. We intend to fight the Nyberg list. Join us in fighting the Nyberg list. It is a wrong list; it has its priorities wrong. The boards should be looking at their administrative space, their administrative costs, their costs to run the schools, as the Provincial Auditor has said. The Provincial Auditor has said they've got their priorities wrong and they should be looking at increasing the community use in their schools to make their schools more viable. Fight the Nyberg list. That's what I say.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, out there where you fear to tread among those community schools, they don't talk about any lists other than -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, withdraw that comment, please.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I will withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Out there they're only talking about one list and that's the Harris list. Nobody else's list. You know what else? They're asking some very simple questions: How could the Minister of Education, how could the man charged with the special responsibility of the education of Ontario's children, be involved implicitly in a project to close community schools? They're wondering why you're not standing up for the schools. Why aren't you out there with them? Why aren't you at the nightly vigils? Why aren't you walking the halls with principals, teachers and parents and learning more about schools? Why aren't you standing up for community schools in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: The members of this government are pleased and proud to be involved in their community schools. Each and every member of this government has been involved in their local schools, going to meetings in their local schools over the months and over the years. My colleague the Minister of Health last evening opened a new elementary school in Waterloo - another new school opening in the province of Ontario. The Minister of Energy opened a new school in Ontario last evening - another one.

Twenty new schools were opened in Ontario in the month of September - more new schools because that's the nature of the new funding formula. On a fair and equal basis it allows school boards the opportunity to meet the needs of their students, to open up new accommodations where accommodations are needed - a fair and equal opportunity.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it is about the Harris government's corporate welfare boondoggle with Andersen Consulting. A year and a half ago, we warned you -

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why don't you laugh now, Janet? This is a funny question, isn't it? Laugh now.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Kingston and the Islands, come to order.

Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: A year and a half ago, we warned you not to sign this contract with Andersen Consulting and yesterday when I asked you about it, you said, "We consulted with jurisdictions around the world that have used this particular company."

Did you talk to the auditor of New Brunswick, where Andersen Consulting ripped off the taxpayers for $3 million in 1996? Minister, did you talk with either Canada or New Brunswick about the almost $50-million rip-off by Andersen Consulting before you signed the deal with them?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member will probably know, the process was started by his government to find a private sector partner to do this important reform. References were checked. As a matter of fact, New Brunswick did recommend that we use Andersen Consulting for this particular reform initiative.

I would also like to remind the honourable member that one of the changes that has already occurred that is saving $20 million just to date is a change in how information is reported to the system. It was a change that, under their government, the ministry had attempted to do, was unable to do it, recognized that they needed private sector expertise, and in one year Andersen has been able to achieve those savings of $20 million. That is good news for the taxpayers of this province. It is also good news for the million people out there who depend on this computer technology because they're getting the payments and the benefits they need when they need them.

Mr Hampton: The minister can repeat that rhetoric, but the auditor knows that this company, Andersen Consulting, is already ripping off the taxpayers of Ontario to the tune of $13 million. But let me go on because the story gets better.

Fairfax county, Virginia, 1996: Andersen Consulting's contract to redesign the social services computer had a 150% cost overrun - another rip-off.

Texas 1997: The cost of Andersen's contract for an automated child support tracking system ballooned by over 600% from the original price - another taxpayer rip-off.

Nebraska 1997: Andersen's contract for the welfare food stamp and Medicaid automation projects - a $24-million cost overrun. The state auditor said: "I've been auditor for six years now and this is the most wasteful project I've ever heard of. It's like pouring money down a deep, dark hole."

Then the Harris government goes out and signs a contract with these corporate welfare rip-off artists. Minister, who's responsible -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We checked with many other jurisdictions that had very good things to say about this particular company that recommended we should use this company. The ministry recognized that we did not have the expertise to manage a change as significant and as important as this change was.

I would also like to remind the honourable -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having difficulty hearing the minister. Could the members come to order, please. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would also like to point out to the honourable member across the way that one of the reasons we have a maximum cap in this arrangement is to protect taxpayers. Secondly, one of the other protections is that the company does not get paid unless there are savings achieved, and that has been very clear. I might like to remind the honourable member that he may wish to look at what the auditor said on one of his television interviews last night about the protection for the taxpayers.

Minister, I'll give you one more example you should check with. In the early 1990s, a Conservative government in Great Britain of the same stripe as yours went out and signed a contract for a new computer system. This past September the main computer register of the National Insurance records of Great Britain collapsed, throwing the social security system in turmoil. Who was in charge? Andersen Consulting, heading up a contract worth almost $400 million.

Minister, if you can't take responsibility for this, if you can't get the money back, then you should resign. Do the honourable thing.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would really suggest that the honourable member check his facts. There is no question that somehow money disappeared where it shouldn't have and that it can't be obtained or the taxpayers don't have it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: References were checked. It's a matter of public record. I'd be quite prepared to give the honourable member that information.

The second thing I would like to remind the honourable member of is that this technology system, which his government couldn't and wouldn't change and wouldn't reform, is in danger of collapsing. We could have ignored that. We chose instead to go out and make the changes that need to be made. We knew we needed help to do that. We went out and got expertise that would assist us in doing that, and we have achieved more savings on one project than they did in the entire time they were there.

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

Mr Hampton: I have more questions for the Minister of Community and Social Services, a lot more questions. Minister, you have signed a contract that pays corporate rip-off artists $575 an hour. Let's put that in perspective. You expect a single person on social assistance in Ontario to live on $520 a month. That's for food, shelter, clothing, everything. You can't blame this on mismanagement or bungling by somebody else. You signed this contract.

Minister, are you responsible, are you prepared to take responsibility, for this? You're paying this corporate rip-off more in one hour than you provide for a poor person to survive in this province. Are you prepared to take responsibility for that shameful course of conduct?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the member well knows, this reform needed to be done; if he objects to that, I would like him to say so, because it would be interesting to hear. His government wouldn't proceed with this reform.

We needed expertise. We went out, through a public tendering process, to get that expertise. He may well think that you don't have to pay to get that expertise. Unfortunately, in the real world we pay people for the work they do. We also pay people for the work they do to make this reform happen.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We've quite welcomed the auditor's comments about the management of this project. I said yesterday that the management was unacceptable, it was not good, it needs to be improved. We are indeed doing that. I had also given directions that the rates be renegotiated, because they are too high and we want to change that, and we are indeed doing that.

I repeat, they didn't have the courage to go out and make that reform so that those million people who depend on that system would know that the technology would be there to pay their cheques. He wouldn't do it. They refused to do it. We're doing it, and we're fixing that system for those individuals.

Mr Hampton: You're right. I was part of a government that wouldn't sign a contract like this with a corporate rip-off artist. I wouldn't take money off the tables of poor people to pay this corporate rip-off artist.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You know what? It's going to take quite a while to finish this question period.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I want to stay on the issue of your responsibility. You passed legislation, Bill 142, that gives you sweeping new powers to take back money from poor social assistance recipients, even though it was your mistake that resulted in the overpayment. Under

section 12 you can take people's homes. Under

section 21 you can go after their spouse. You can even issue an order that says, "Enforceable against the recipient as if it were an order of the Ontario Court." You go after the poor people in Ontario no holds barred.

The question is, are you going to get the money back from Andersen Consulting? Are you going to get a court order against them? What are you going to do to get the taxpayers' money back from these corporate welfare rip-off artists? Tell us.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I might caution the honourable member that the auditor talked about the ministry's mismanagement of the project. The auditor did not talk about the quality of work that Andersen had done; the auditor did not talk about the company. I would remind the honourable member of that.

The other thing is that this is a public tendering process. The details are available, unlike the Highway 407 contract that his government signed. I'd like to remind people about that.

Secondly, he also knows that under his government, overpayments or underpayments to people on social assistance were always adjusted, as they should be if there are overpayments or underpayments. That was a policy that existed at the time his government was in place. They didn't feel they needed to change that.

I would also like to say to the honourable member that if there is money that should not have gone to Andersen, that money is being returned. We have said there was not a close enough check on the money that was being paid. That's why I've directed that there are new rules in place to be more accountable -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Ecker: - to make sure it is very carefully watched and checked in terms of what money goes to the company. I would also like to stress, however, that the only money that is being -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Minister, we've given you every opportunity to take responsibility for this. We've given you every opportunity to admit that you signed a sweetheart deal, that the taxpayers are being taken advantage of and you should get the money back. We've asked you what your strategy is to get the money back, but all you do is search around for someone to cast blame on. It's either the ministry or it's the bureaucracy somewhere else.

Minister, you signed this contract. No one else signed it for you. This is your initiative. You have to take responsibility. If you're not prepared to go out and get the taxpayers' money back - and you've given no indication that you're willing to do that - then there's only one recourse: Resign. If you can't do the job, get somebody else who can.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No one is ducking any responsibility here. We've been very clear. The auditor has said the project was not managed well. We accept that. We're taking steps to fix that.

The second thing I would like to remind the honourable member: If there are indeed inappropriate payments that had gone to Andersen that were not supposed to go, those monies will be returned. There is no problem with that. For the member to suggest that somehow or other there is something nefarious going on - again, I would urge him to check his research. The auditor certainly didn't make any such statement whatsoever.

The other thing I would like to remind the honourable member is that the only payments this company receives are payments that come from savings that are already achieved.

The Speaker: New question, official opposition.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is on the same issue with the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to return to what has to be one of the grossest wastes of taxpayers' money that we have ever seen here in the Legislature.

You signed a $180-million contract, and you said that they only got money for savings. I want to say to you that the auditor pointed out that you authorized $15 million of payments to this company, the first $15 million, that was unnecessary, unearned, inappropriate. Why did you authorize it? To use the language of the auditor, it was to demonstrate the project's success. You wasted $15 million of taxpayers' money - the auditor said "unnecessary money" - just to make the project look successful. It had nothing to do with Andersen Consulting; it was to make the project look successful.

I want you to answer to the taxpayers today: How could you possibly justify spending $15 million of taxpayers' money unnecessarily, just to make you look good?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, he is incorrect. We have had savings on one piece of this project of approximately $20 million. Andersen's expenditures are over $44 million to date on this project. As he well knows, they bear the upfront cost and the risk of this particular project. If there are savings, they get paid from those savings. The work they did on this project allowed us to have a savings of $20 million. The ministry had been attempting to complete this particular reform since about 1994 and had been unable to do it. With the assistance of Andersen, they were indeed able to do that.

We acknowledge that there are management procedures on this project that were not in place. They should have been in place. That's why we have a new team and we've got new rules. I have directed that there be an independent review of this management process to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Mr Phillips: The minister is wrong. The auditor points out $15 million of unnecessary expenditures. You authorized $15 million of the taxpayers' hard-earned money, and the auditor said, "Why?" Just so you could make the project look successful. This is gross waste.

I'll go on. You find that they increased their rate 63%. I ask the people of Ontario, have any of you had a 63% increase in your salary? No. But Andersen Consulting, under the minister, was allowed to increase their rate 63%. This is one of the most absurd things: They submitted their bills and then they charged the government $500,000 interest unpaid on the bills, and then they marked up the interest charge. They made profit on the interest charge. This thing is obscene, and the taxpayers know it.

Now you've been found out. The auditor has exposed you, and now you say, "Okay, I'm going to do something about it." Surely you knew 12 months ago about this obscene contract. Tell us what you did 12 months ago to deal with the obscene rip-off here of the taxpayers by you and Mike Harris.

Hon Mrs Ecker: What the taxpayers of this province know is that we have saved, in the last three years, $2.8 billion for those taxpayers because of our welfare reforms.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: What the taxpayers also know is that, despite that $2.8 billion worth of savings they have received, there are over 323,000 individuals who are no longer on welfare, because of our welfare reforms like Ontario Works. That's what the taxpayers know. We don't apologize for moving forward with reforms. We recognized that this was a new process, that it was a pilot project. The auditor has made some excellent recommendations about how to improve the management of that project, and we are indeed acting on them.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, the auditor made it clear that your cuts to MNR are putting our natural resources at risk. Your government claims that you have maintained 280 conservation officers' badges, so there's no problem with enforcement. But the auditor made it clear that 65 people with CO badges don't do any enforcement activity at all and the rest can't do their jobs properly. Seventy per cent of the COs surveyed said they couldn't patrol effectively because of poor vehicles and equipment and bigger patrol areas.

Budgets for enforcement ran out seven to eight months into the fiscal year, and there are now restrictions on the number of kilometres that can be driven per month in a patrol area. As a result, many of the COs are doing enforcement only in high-risk areas. Overall, charges are down by 12%, and in the northeast and northwest, charges are down by 24%.

Minister, COs can't do their job because of your budget cuts and our natural resources are being put at risk. How can you defend your appalling record?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for the question. She's quite right that the number of badges for conservation officers in the province has been maintained at the levels under the previous government, and on top of that I'm glad, and I know many people around Ontario have seen, that the conservation officers have recently been re-equipped in better, newer, more modern, efficient vehicles. There have been better communications systems provided for them.

In fact, contrary to what we have heard in the question, their budgets have been increased so they can patrol more areas. They have a very difficult task. We are learning to do enforcement procedures in better ways and in alignment with other agencies in Ontario, and I think we're doing a better job now than ever in enforcing the laws of Ontario.

Ms Martel: Minister, you must be the only one who thinks you're doing a better job than ever, because the auditor tells a much different story.

Not only are you not in a position to protect fish and wildlife in the province, but you are failing to ensure that field programs for fish and wildlife are even being carried out. The auditor noted that $4.5 million was taken out of the fish and wildlife special purpose account but was not spent on fish and wildlife activities. You know that the money in this account by law has to be spent on those activities. You also know that by law you are supposed to table in this Legislature an annual report of the fish and wildlife special purpose account. As of this morning, it hasn't been tabled for 1996-97 or 1997-98.

Minister, where did the $4.5 million go and how much of it was spent on your lands for strife consultation process?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The auditor's report is very useful in that it has drawn to our attention that we definitely need to have a better linkage of the activities of the ministry and the performance and the results that are generated, better ways of tracking the expenditures inside the ministry. I have told the ministry, and they are working now to meet the requirements that are set out in the auditor's report, and we will do that. I also want to say that as soon as we receive a report from the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board, it will be tabled here in compliance.

DRUG USE IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): My question is directed to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Last month I spent a Friday night in jail. I need your help. It was not personal business. In fact, I responded to constituent concerns about disturbing inmate activities at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre. I visited the facility for a tour. During my tour I had the opportunity to speak with several corrections officers. The corrections staff told me that one of their challenges to ensuring public safety and inmate security is drug use and drug smuggling into detention centres.

Some offenders have serious addictive drug use problems and will go to great lengths at great risk to continue their habit once incarcerated.

Minister, I know we're in agreement on not tolerating illegal drug activity inside our jails. What steps are being taken to deal with the issue of contraband drugs in ministry correctional facilities?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to commend the member for Wentworth North for his initiative, an excellent example for all members of this House with respect to acting upon a concern and reporting to my office with respect to his findings. As a result of his visit, we had an assistant deputy minister visit the institution and talk to management and correctional officers.

As he said, any illegal drug use in a correctional facility is completely unacceptable. The corrections officers conduct frequent and thorough searches of inmates, their living accommodation and institutional grounds. We're doing what we can in a very challenging situation, visited upon us to a significant degree by the federal government.

Mr Skarica: Minister, I appreciate your prompt action in addressing my concerns. In fact, I can tell you that the constituents I contacted were very pleased and very appreciative that you and your department responded so promptly.

What I think many of my constituents are concerned about and many other people across the province want to know is, why is drug possession within provincial jails such an ongoing problem? Since the ministry is obviously going to great lengths to address this problem, why does drug use remain an ongoing security risk in our provincial institutions?

Hon Mr Runciman: A major cause of problems we have in the institutions across the province is intermittent sentences. I've raised this at federal-provincial-territorial conferences of justice ministers for the past three years and again raised it a week ago in Saskatchewan. Last year we had consensus of nine out of 10 provinces to make intermittent sentences optional. The federal government has not acted upon that consensus. When I raised it again, they described it as an administrative inconvenience. That shows you how aware the federal government and justice officials are with respect to reality in the institutions across this country.

We have hundreds of people coming into the institutions on the weekends, these weekend sentences. It is not realistic for us to put all of these individuals into dry cells and observe them for 24 hours in terms of what they may pass. It's a very difficult public safety issue for inmates and for correctional officers. I just plead with the federal government to get off their tail and do something about this very important public safety issue.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. You were part of the charade this morning trying to fool Ontarians that something is changing in terms of health care. It was the Premier trying to run away from his responsibility. I want to find out today if you're going to run away from yours.

Today you talked about cuts to hospitals. I'm not talking about the automatic and arbitrary cuts, but you tried to make hospitals feel like they would be more secure in future. Instead, the cuts that your commission said are happening to a number of communities, you've just said you're going to send to a committee. What that means is that communities all across Ontario not only have been ravaged by what you've done so far; you have more cuts in mind.

Minister, I want to ask you specifically about the $22 million that is there in the commission's directives to be cut from Hamilton, the $14.4 million to be cut from hospitals in Kingston, the $24 million to be cut from hospitals in Kitchener-Waterloo, the $207 million you're still planning to cut from hospitals in Toronto, and the list goes on. Are you still planning to take the money from these hospitals, yes or no?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Unfortunately, the member opposite does not seem to understand that what our government is doing is that we are responding to the concerns and the suggestions and the input that we have received from the people in the province of Ontario. They recognize that we are spending more money today on health than at any time in the history of this province. They also know it's the federal government that has reduced health spending to the tune of $2.5 billion.

I would also like to add that we are ensuring that our health dollars are spent in the right places. That means we are directing money to community services, because that's what people are telling us is required. As you know, that was part of our commitment when we introduced the plan for long-term care. The reason for that was because your government and the other government -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - had done no planning for 10 years and no new long-term-care beds had been created. So I am pleased that our government is moving forward to provide the strengthened health services -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: I think that means the minister is going to be cutting, and it's consistent, because in estimates her deputy minister said that further cuts are coming. The Premier said this morning, "We're going to implement 100% of the recommendations of the restructuring commission."

What that means is that in Essex, in Windsor, they're going to be cutting over $14 million more. In the Niagara region, where you told the Hotel Dieu to close down, you're going to add injury to insult by cutting another $18 million. In Brantford, there's $18 million more. In Sudbury, it's $27 million more.

Minister, which is it? Have you bumbled the management of hospitals in this province, are you taking it back, or is it just a public relations exercise and you're still going to slash and cut patient services, fire more nurses and take down the quality of health care in this province? Minister, tell us the straight goods today.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The straight goods are that our government has not cut any money from health care. We have added, from $17.4 billion to $18.7 billion, and I would indicate to you that next year and the year thereafter we will further increase health -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Hamilton East, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I withdraw it.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have not made any cuts to health care in this province. We are making sure that as we move forward we put in place the services people are asking us for, whether it's the healthy babies program, whether it's more dialysis in their own communities, whether it's more MRIs, taking cardiac centres and cancer centres closer to home, making sure that we have the substance abuse programs everywhere.

Last week when we were in Thunder Bay, the community indicated to us that they wanted more community services for mental health, they didn't want all the resources in the hospital, and that's what we're doing.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are making sure that the health resources are spent in the right places, as close to home and made available -

The Speaker: New question, third party.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): To the Minister of Education: Last night in my riding over 400 parents came together to fight your school closures. They made it clear that they don't buy your act of trying to vilify the Toronto District School Board or the chair of that board. Minister, they know their own schools, and they know that the wide halls and many other spaces that are in these old buildings are not usable classroom space. They know that your rigid funding formula says that it is.

I would like to suggest a solution to this. You had a report of an expert panel on pupil accommodation grants. This was not made public until the court case this summer on Bill 160, and then it was filed as an exhibit. This is exhibit G. I want to read to you - because it appears they knew this problem was likely to come up in cities like Toronto. They noted that, "In the implementation phase, there may be a need for an appeal process to permit adjustment for boards in which area per pupils in place in existing schools is significantly greater than these benchmarks because of physical characteristics of the building."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Ms Lankin: This is a recommendation for an appeal process that you ignored. Minister -

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): In anticipation of what the question would be if the member hadn't run out of time, I would say that we have asked the school boards to look at the numbers. The numbers have been out for a while now, and we asked the school boards to respond by last Friday in terms of if the numbers are incorrect or if there is any particular problem with the numbers. Slightly over half of the boards have responded, and we expect the rest of the boards to be responding in the near future. At that point in time, we're going to take a look at the responses coming back from the boards.

The ministry bases its decisions on the numbers given to it in the first place, but if any errors are made, they will be corrected. As well, the ministry is more than happy to look at any other suggestions the boards have at the same time.

Ms Lankin: It's not a question of error; it's a question of your formula and what it counts as usable space and the fact that it doesn't work in some cities. The report suggested an appeal process, and I'm asking you to consider implementing that appeal process.

You're talking about transition measures now. The Premier says: "We're prepared to look at transitioning. We're prepared to work with them to transition through." Later on, one of your ministry officials is quoted as saying that they need something that will get them past the election. So this looks like another patchwork solution to buy you political time.

Minister, I've got a suggestion for your new education ad. Take the little boy who starred in the health care ad who ripped the Band-Aid off and show him putting the Band-Aid back on. If you're going to have just temporary solutions, people are not going to buy it.

Will you please examine the funding formula and will you please agree to look at putting in place an appeal process that makes sure you don't have a cookie-cutter approach but that it works for communities whether it's in Toronto or right across this province?

Hon David Johnson: The third party has been very interested in what the auditor has had to say today.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We didn't ask you about the auditor.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sure you're interested in what the auditor has to say. The auditor in his comments indicated, "At the time of our review of the ministry the school boards we visited did not have satisfactory systems and procedures for the acquisition and management of school facilities." Now they say, "The new funding model for pupil accommodation will encourage boards to more prudently manage their facilities and resources and will require boards to publicly demonstrate that they have done so."

The auditor seems to think that the funding formula is going to be helpful - helpful to boards, more accountability. I will say, in addition, the funding model does allow for vastly different circumstances: small schools, rural schools, urban schools, across Ontario. But again, I'm more than happy to look and I will be looking - that's a process that's already set in place - at the comments of the boards as they come in over the next couple of days.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is for the Minister Without Portfolio with responsibility for privatization and the government's lead on auto insurance. I've been contacted by a constituent who was involved in an automobile accident in which no fault was assigned by the police. My constituent was surprised to learn that her insurance company had assigned fault to her. On behalf of my constituent I would like to know why her insurance company assigned fault when the police did not and why her insurance company assigned fault if we have no-fault insurance in Ontario?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Good question, Ernie. That's a good one.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I agree with the opposition member, that is indeed a very good question, and I want to thank the honourable member for Oxford for raising it in the House today.

The no-fault system that he's speaking to refers to the accident damage component, the damage to the physical part of a car - the sheet metal and glass, as they say in the business - as a result of an accident. Indeed, that is a no-fault system. The advantage of the no-fault system is that for anybody involved in an accident, when they have a claim against sheet metal or glass damage as a result of an accident, it eliminates the need for lengthy delays, usually resulting from tort claims.

Even if police don't lay charges against a driver as a result of an accident, the insurance companies still use what are called the fault determination rules to try to assess fault. They're very interested in determining who is responsible for the act so they can assess the way in which the driver behaves, the way in which the driver drives his or her car, to determine the level of risk associated with any particular vehicle being insured. That indeed is what the fault determination rules have been set up to do, to allow insurance companies to allocate that risk so they can then go and reinsure that vehicle or individual.

Mr Hardeman: I appreciate the explanation and I'll be sure to pass it on to my constituent. I wonder if the minister can tell us a little more about the fault determination rules. Have they always existed, or were they brought in as part of our government's reform of auto insurance?

Hon Mr Sampson: The fault determination rules were the creation of the Liberal government when they were involved in something called OMMP, the Ontario motorist protection plan. In fact it was a construct that tried to provide some stability to auto insurance. I can't say that they were successful in providing stability to auto insurance, because of course that would be misleading the House and I wouldn't want to do that.

What it did do is provide an environment where disputes involving physical claim damage could be settled without having to go to court. I think that does have some merit and that's why we have chosen to continue it with our particular bill that has lowered auto insurance rates in this province 10% since it was introduced two years ago. I say to the members across the floor who are heckling now that they voted against the bill that allowed us to lower auto insurance rates in the province, and I think they might want to explain to Ontarians why they were against lower auto insurance in this province.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday, you will know, the OPP did a surprise spot check on our highways. They were shocked at what they found. Of 141 rigs that were inspected, 60 were taken in for inspection and 33 had to be taken off the road completely. If that isn't alarming enough, one truck was found to be held together with duct tape and chicken wire. You said with your Target `97 that you were going to make the road safer. What are you going to do about this latest crisis you now have on your hands?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for the question. The opposition is always quick to proclaim a crisis. What I want to say to him and indeed to the entire assembly is that this is an issue of great importance to this government. We have a priority in the Ministry of Transportation to make Ontario's roads the safest in North America. We're not quite there yet. We're in the top five, but we want to be number one.

That is why over the past couple of years we have introduced such things as the commercial vehicle impoundment yards, which have impounded 189 critically defective commercial vehicles. We have instituted 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week truck inspection stations throughout the province of Ontario. We've hired over 80 new inspection officers, not only at the site itself, but roving officers to find these vehicles that are evading our truck inspection stations.

So yes, there are improvements that have to be made. I'm quite concerned about some of the rollovers and some of the jackknives that have happened over the last few days. But I want to assure the honourable member that it is the top priority -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Cordiano: I can't believe the minister is not concerned about this. You have a crisis on your hands. Let me reveal what has happened over the last number of months. There used to be only two or three rollover accidents a week in the province. You know what? In the last three months there have been two or three jackknives and rollovers a day. Not every month; each and every day.

You know what I think? I think this minister has been spending too much time trying to unite the right rather than taking care of business on our highways. You know what, Minister? Time to get back to the drawing board. Time for you to do what you really should be doing, which is -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Cordiano: Obviously, Minister, your Target '97 plan is a failure. When are you going to recognize that and when are you going to go back to the drawing board to make sure our highways are safer? Because that's a really serious issue.

Hon Mr Clement: Yes, I've noticed, as every driver has noticed, that in the past few weeks there have been some problems on our highways. We want to monitor that and deal with that on an everyday basis. I applaud the OPP for doing the snap inspections. We have, year upon year, done random inspections in this province. I will say to the honourable member that every single year since this government has been in power there has been a decline in the number of rigs pulled off the road, and we are proud of that record. We will continue to do more.

The honourable member talks about uniting. I want him to know that this caucus is united in the belief that we have to get at this problem and we have put our money where our mouth is. We are dealing with the problem.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the minister responsible for long-term care, but in his absence I'm going to direct it to the Minister of Health.

Yesterday's auditor's report was quite critical of your long-term-care initiative. The auditor concludes that your ministry doesn't have adequate procedures in place to measure and report on the effectiveness of community care access centres. Financial statements from CCACs were six months overdue. There are no procedures for handling complaints even though the Long-Term Care Act requires the establishment of a formal process for receiving, reviewing and recording complaints. Minister, without such inspections, how can your ministry effectively evaluate the quality of care and service to communities?

I suspect that many of these concerns that have been raised by the auditor apply directly to the Windsor-Essex Community Care Access Centre. I suspect, because it's impossible to get information directly.

I understand that an independent auditor has been retained to look into this. I hope it's not Andersen Consulting. Minister, will you confirm this today and, if so, don't you think it's appropriate that the executive director step aside until that audit is completed?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We appreciate the recommendations of the auditor, and we will be following through and making sure that we follow those recommendations.

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): There's a looming crisis in the delivery of physiotherapy services in northwestern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I need to see a petition; I need to hear it.

Mr Gravelle: I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas as of April 1, 1999, G467 therapeutic physiotherapy services will not be covered by OHIP; and

"Whereas the only recourse for patients will be through hospital outpatient services that already face waiting lists of three to four months; and

"Whereas these same services are provided in other areas of the province through

schedule 5 clinics, which are funded through a $39-million allocation by the Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas of that $39 million none has been allocated for northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas if the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services goes forward because there are no

schedule 5 clinics in northwestern Ontario, there is a real fear that a two-tier system for physiotherapy services will be the norm, that one system would accommodate those who have private insurance or enough money to pay out of pocket, while the other tier will be one where those in need wait for months on waiting lists while continuing to suffer; and

"Whereas as our population ages, those requiring physiotherapy will increase and without these services the strain on our medical system will only increase as people aggravate old injuries that were not properly treated through modern physiotherapy treatments; and

"Whereas the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services is further indication that there is a real erosion, by this government, of sound medical services in northwestern Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the planned fee

schedule delisting of G467 therapeutic physiotherapy services and provide northwestern Ontario with a portion of the $39-million Ministry of Health allocation for physiotherapy services."

I am very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition that has been given to me by the NDP nominee for Hamilton Mountain. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced the closure of Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario through the Health Services Restructuring Commission is divesting its responsibility for mental health care without hearing from the community first; and

"Whereas community-based mental health care providers will bear the brunt of this ill-fated decision by being forced to meet what is sure to be an increased demand for their services; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is not adequately monitoring community-based mental health services for their effectiveness, efficiency, or whether they're even delivering the agreed-upon programs in the first place, according to the 1997 annual report of the Provincial Auditor; and

"Whereas the community pays the price for cuts to mental health care;

I am proud to affix my signature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I wonder if you could keep your petitions short. Just asking.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I present this on behalf of 200 signatories in my riding.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario in 1996;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

Of course I'm in support, so I will affix my signature to this petition.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 21 people.

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

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

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

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

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

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora is a necessary program; and

"Whereas the Harris government has refused to provide long-term funding for diabetes education in Kenora; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has acknowledged that the program is cost-effective given the volume of clients seen and the degree of specialization required;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, join our MPP, Frank Miclash, in calling upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the Harris government provide long-term, stable funding to the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora."

I'm certainly in agreement with that petition and have added my name to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Mr Speaker, I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's quite long and I'll cut it down pursuant to your request.

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

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences" - it goes on to indicate further details, and it concludes:

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

I agree with the contents of the petition and I affix my name to it.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas due to the Harris funding cuts to education, the district school boards are being forced to consider the closing of schools in Ontario before next September; and

"Whereas the parents do not want these schools closed, because they are operating at full capacity and fear the further chaos and crisis the Harris government is imposing on the education of their children; and

"Whereas there is apprehension and turmoil in our communities due to the government rules which determine that hundreds of students will have to find new schools to go to next September;

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

"We call upon the Minister of Education, who has the primary responsibility for providing a quality education for each and every student in Ontario, to:

"

(1) Listen to the views being expressed by the teachers, parents and students who are concerned about the disruptive effect these school closures would have on their lives;

"

(2) Recognize the fundamental importance of our local schools to our neighbourhood communities; and

"

(3) Live up to its commitment to provide adequate funding for the important and essential components which make up a good education and not allow the closing of schools, because education in community schools is important."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in support.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I continue to receive petitions, over 5,000 signatures to date, from people calling for the elimination of regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk. These petitions are from a group called RATH, Residents Against Tax Hikes.

"Whereas the Haldimand-Norfolk region has downloaded a 17% tax hike on residents, without attempting to cut its own costs; and

"Whereas for the past 25 years, there have been meetings, petitions, referenda and studies calling for a restructuring of regional government; and

"Whereas 80% of the residents did not want regional government in the first place, and in recent referenda 75% of the residents of the city of Nanticoke and 60% of the residents of the town of Simcoe voted against retaining regional government; and

"Whereas residents in the region do not want and clearly cannot afford two levels of municipal government;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that provincial legislation be passed to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk, and institute a form of restructured local government in keeping with the wishes and the financial means of the local residents."

I agree with this petition and hereby affix my signature.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is another one with regard to prostate cancer.

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

Of course, I affix my signature to this petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Mr Speaker, in accordance with your suggestion, I will read just the essential elements of this petition. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Toronto District School Board has proposed the closure of over 130 schools in the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas the TDSB is still using all six headquarters buildings and properties that are valuable real estate; and

"Whereas consolidating these buildings first before uprooting any students and selling the extra administrative buildings would give the TDSB a boost in capital which they can use to upgrade and renew existing schools, not close them; and

"Whereas the TDSB spent 50% more per pupil for maintenance and operations last year than the Toronto Catholic board, with the Toronto board spending $1,052 per pupil compared to $621 per pupil for the Catholic board;

"Now, therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario to force the Toronto school board to find administrative efficiencies first before closing any schools, and further that the Toronto District School Board be required to publicly release a line-by-line analysis of their budget justifying all administrative costs prior to any school closure."

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas due to the Harris funding cuts to education, the district school boards are being forced to consider the closing of schools in Ontario before next September; and

"Whereas the parents do not want these schools closed, because they are operating at full capacity, and fear the further chaos and crisis the Harris government is imposing on the education of their children; and

"Whereas there is apprehension and turmoil in our communities due to government rules which determine that hundreds of students will have to find new schools to go to next September;

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

"We call upon the Minister of Education, who has the primary responsibility for providing a quality education for each and every student in Ontario, to:

"1. Listen to the views being expressed by the teachers, parents and students who are concerned about the disruptive effects these school closures would have on their lives;

"2. Recognize the fundamental importance of our local schools to our neighbourhood communities;

"3. Live up to its commitment to provide adequate funding for the important and essential components which make up a good education and not allow the closing of schools because education in community schools is important."

I forward that with my name attached as well.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I have with me a petition signed by over 2,000 residents of Grimsby and the surrounding communities. In

summary:

"The Health Services Restructuring Commission has made its interim report for Niagara region that keeps the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital located in Grimsby open and part of the rural health care framework. It also preserves its governance structure and management services contract with the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp.

"The undersigned encourage the restructuring commission to keep these recommendations as part of its final report and adhere to the rural health care policy."

I gladly add my name to the list.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Yet another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas due to the Harris funding cuts to education the district school boards are being forced to consider the closing of schools in Ontario before next September; and

"Whereas the parents do not want these schools closed because they are operating at full capacity, and fear the further chaos and crisis the Harris government is imposing on the education of their children; and

"Whereas there is apprehension and turmoil in our communities due to government rules which determine that hundreds of students will have to find new schools to go to next September;

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

"We call upon the Minister of Education, who has the primary responsibility for providing a quality education for each and every student in Ontario, to:

"1. Listen to the views being expressed by the teachers, parents and students who are concerned about the disruptive effects these school closures would have on their lives;

"2. Recognize the fundamental importance of our local schools to our neighbourhood communities;

"3. Live up to its commitment to provide adequate funding for the important and essential components which make up a good education and not allow the closing of schools because education in community schools is important."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA / LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur les carburants et la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Mr Speaker, with unanimous consent, I may share some of my time with my colleague from Durham East.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): That's mighty generous, Doug.

Mr Rollins: It is, I know.

I'd like to speak on this Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act. It's something that's fairly close to my past history. We've had some experience in the gasoline business that maybe has some input on this bill.

One of the things this bill does is to try to implement a faster measurement of taxes collected from the people who pay the taxes, when the oil companies, particularly the major oil companies, have such a delay in the time to remit their taxes to the government. When you stop and think that some 14.7 cents comes into the provincial coffers every time that gas pump rolls around, that kind of money would amount to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4 million if we could increase the payment coming into the coffers a little more quickly.

When we allow the oil companies, particularly the larger distributors, which in many cases collect more than $12 million a year per large distributor, to drag that out for anywhere from between 15 and 45 days, it makes for a lot of money that could be put into the treasury. Particularly in the province of Ontario, it would increase the dollars we have access to without having to borrow and keep our house in a little closer order.

I know there aren't too many companies or businesses that, when they collect taxes, aren't supposed to put their taxes in relatively quickly. The oil companies and the major distributors have been allowed to work with that 14 cents a litre. When you look at that 14 cents a litre on a huge tractor-trailer load of gas or one of those pup loads of gas, when you look at 60,000 litres of gasoline and multiply it times 14 cents, in many cases the person who gets that load of gas writes a cheque for it.

Even if they don't write a cheque for it, the time of credit has been squeezed, from the oil companies down to the people in the distributing business, down to somewhere less than 15 days. They collect that money, and the oil companies may have another 30 or 60 days before they remit that money to the treasurers, whether it goes to the federal government or the provincial government. Those kinds of dollars would make a large difference in the amount of money that we could be having put into our treasury each day.

I know that small businesses sometimes, because we don't submit too much in the form of provincial tax, are allowed to put it in on a 30-day or 60-day basis, or maybe even on a quarterly basis if you don't put in very much. But when we have so many dollars being put in by the very large companies, I think they should be brought to task and we should make sure they pay that money upfront a little more quickly so it saves the burden on all of us. When you pull up to the pumps, there aren't too many of us who have 15 days to pay for our gasoline.

That money comes out of your bank account relatively quickly, or you pay for it before you pull away from the pump. There aren't too many people who have the privilege of signing their name and not paying for it. So that money is already put in there.

One of the other things in the bill that is a big concern of mine personally - and I know it isn't completely addressed in this bill - is when we talk about bringing the product to 15 degrees Celsius. Now, 15 degrees Celsius is somewhere in the vicinity of 62 or 64 degrees. That's a relatively warm temperature. Most of the product that we pump out of the ground is at a much colder temperature than that. True, if we were to do the same number of gallons or litres of product in the wintertime as we do in the summertime and it was everything perfect in a perfect circle, it probably would make very little difference.

But in Canada, we don't have the pleasure of bringing the product out of the ground at 15 degrees. We bring the product out of the ground year-round at closer to the 42 or 46 degree mark, or closer to 6 degrees Celsius. That makes a big difference, and when you take that 6 or 7 degree split in there that we're paying on, it makes a fair amount of expansion, and we pay tax on that expansion. That tax is actually paid into the treasury, but we're paying on to it.

It's another question we must take a look at, to see whether that 15 degrees - it may well be 15 degrees in Saudi Arabia and it may well be 15 degrees on the world market, but it isn't 15 degrees in Canada and it isn't 15 degrees in Ontario. It may be in one part of Canada - Victoria or Vancouver may well be getting closer to 15 degrees - but I can guarantee you in the province of Ontario it isn't close to 15 degrees.

When you take that into consideration and then you add the GST on top of that tax that you're paying - when you pull up to the pumps, you don't see the GST; it's all worked into the price of the gasoline at the pump. But when you look at gas at around 50 cents a litre, add your GST on to it, that's about 3.5 cents a litre for the GST. If there's a margin of profit to the dealer of only approximately three cents a litre, he has to then add on to that his wholesale cost and his retail cost. That's another amount of money that's sent in.

That money is generally spent the very day the truck delivers that load of gas to that station, to that distributor. It doesn't allow 15 days; it doesn't allow 45 days. This is trying to bring back some continuity to the way we collect the tax. If it's fair that you or I as a consumer have to pay the tax as soon as we get it, why do we afford the pleasure to the big companies of 15 or 45 days extra, after their allotted time, to put that tax bill in?

When you stop and think of the number of days those big trucks go down the road with some 60,000 litres, and multiply it by close to 32 cents a litre that it can add up to when you put your GST, your markup and everything else on, that's a lot of money that should be coming into your and my bank account. That's one of the things that has always bugged me a little bit as far as the way that we as a country or a province have looked at it.

I think moving in this act will speed that process up. We have to look at some of those things to make sure we can make some headway on improving it. We've had some different decisions as far as being able to look after the price of gasoline and trying to make it more fair. We're very upset with trying to look at the price of gas jumping up eight and 10 cents a litre. Mr Speaker, if that had gone back to the days when you and I first started driving a car, it would have been back to gallons. That would have been an increase of some 32 cents a gallon.

I can tell you they would tar and feather any company that ever raised the price of gas for a weekend by 32 cents a gallon. I think they would be just in doing that, because it's absolutely highway robbery to allow the major companies - and it has been going on a long time, and it needs to come to a halt. I know this bill doesn't specifically deal with every aspect of making sure that stops, but we have to continually take a look at that and make sure we drive that down so that we have some continuity in price.

Some of the regulations in the tax collecting, harmonizing it - I know in excise tax as far as liquor is concerned, that money is sent in a lot quicker than it has been in the fuel consumption. It's to the advantage of the oil companies to make sure they drag their feet as much as they possibly can to give that money back to the government.

If our coffers were full, if we had excess money and we didn't need it, it would be quite different, but when it costs us some $4 million a year that we could save, just the province of Ontario, for looking after having that money collected earlier so we wouldn't have to pay that kind of interest, it's very important to make sure that happens in that respect.

The waste that happens in reproducing used oil, particularly from waste oil that they put back and recycle into the system - we've got to watch very closely to make sure when it's recycled, you and I, as the people who supposedly look after the tax collectors of Ontario and of our country, that those people are paying the proper taxes on that, because that's not oil that's coming out of a refinery; it's not oil that's being shipped in by boat or by tanker truck; it's oil that has been produced from waste oil. That oil is not measurable and sometimes there can be a loss in there, making sure those taxes are properly adhered to.

I know the bill speaks about the dye and the colour as far as gasoline is concerned. Having been around the industry for a while, I know there are different colours for different codes of gasoline that mark it for the use you have. They also make a different dye colour particularly for diesel fuels and fuels that are used for off-road consumption. It's very illegal to use coloured fuel in a vehicle, yet we as a government sometimes do not stand up to the test as quickly as we should to make sure that dye is in properly, to make sure that if somebody were to stop a vehicle and test the fuel, that vehicle does not have coloured fuel in it.

If it does have coloured fuel in it, under the bill you can get up to a $200 fine or up to a $1,000 fine. That, to me personally, is way too low. I think it should be increased because when we allow coloured fuels to be in vehicles on the roads, a vehicle seizure is not the wrong thing to do. But that's only Doug Rollins speaking; it's not that part of it. We have to make sure we don't allow people to cross out and not pay the taxes - because that's what it amounts to when that coloured fuel is in there.

Some people are trying to put some input in to evade the tax man, to make sure he doesn't have to write that cheque out. When it gets up to better than half of the price of gasoline being tax, it becomes very lucrative to say: "Maybe we can miss it. Maybe we can cheat on it a little bit." That is something, to make sure we don't miss those taxes. We have to have them for our use. We certainly need them.

A lot of the taxes we collect from fuel is spent on roads. The federal government takes a lot of its tax, and we don't get it back in the response to make sure the taxes they collect are put back into transportation. It goes into their coffers. Mr Speaker, in the past couple of years, we in Ontario - I know from driving up and down from your town and my town on those roads, particularly the 401, the dollars we've spent to improve those roads. Are they where they need to be? Absolutely not. But are they better than they were? They certainly are. Supporting Bill 74 can well play a part to improve the lot of Ontario and the way we collect taxes.

I'll now share my time with my colleague from Durham East.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): On a point of clarification, I just hope that Mr Rollins and myself are not splitting the same 20 minutes. Maybe there was more debate time on this.

I think there were a couple of points that the member for Quinte made that are important, but when you look at any finance bill, arguably it would put most of the audience to sleep. This is really a kind of administrative bill. When I was asked to speak on it - I enjoy speaking on legislation because it encourages me to read some of the detail in the bill. Quite often the most important highlight is to read the

preamble to the bill, which gives you a fairly good overview of what really is happening.

The member for Quinte, with his experience, has covered some of the ambient temperature issues. It's a very important issue and I could go into some detail with the briefing notes I've been provided.

For the person viewing today, the bill amends the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act to implement measures contained in the last two budgets, 1997 and 1998.

"Both acts are amended in connection with the following matter: The period for assessing taxes payable is extended from three years to four years. The period for assessing penalties for a failure to collect taxes and for claiming tax refunds is similarly extended," from three to four years. So really we're eliminating the loopholes for tax avoidance.

Second, "Taxes collected or collectible by certain persons are deemed to be held in trust" for the province. "Related amendments are made concerning the disposition of property held in trust, and concerning when assessments.... In other words, they're really bumping up their access to the courts in terms of the liability. The province will become an earlier claimant in any business failure.

Third, "The objection and appeal procedures are amended, changes relate to such matters as the contents of a notice of objection; the service of a notice of objection; the scope of an appeal to court from a decision of the minister concerning an objection; and the payment of a fee when an appeal is commenced."

I could go on to some extent, but as you can see, it's a fairly technical bill.

In the four minutes remaining in my portion of the debate, I just want to concentrate on a couple of points. My riding is Durham East, and in my riding we have a federal member who has championed the cause of the price of gasoline, Dan McTeague. He's the Liberal member for Ajax-Pickering, I think, or Whitby-Ajax. I have a lot of respect for his crusade to watchdog the price of gasoline.

As the member for Quinte said, when you look at it in litres - I'm from the generation that converts it to gallons - you realize it's really four times that amount. When I looked at Mr McTeague's report, I was surprised to learn the background. How much tax is in a litre of gas is quite frightening. Many consumers don't realize that. I'm not apologizing, as I'm a member of a government that spends taxpayers' money and I'm a member of a government that doesn't want tax.

So arguably, for the purpose of those listening today, I want to make it clear that 14.7 cents on every litre of gasoline is provincial tax; 10 cents per litre is federal tax; and on top of that there's the GST at 7%, which works out to be about 3.5 cents a litre. So each level of government is taking some 14 or 15 cents per litre, which is really 30 cents. When you look at what they actually pay for the product and you look at the poor little retailer who is only making one or two cents a litre to stand out in the cold and pump gas in your car and perhaps clean your windshield, you wonder why some of these independents are being squeezed out.

That isn't specific in this bill, I want to make that very clear, but for those viewing and listening, it's important to recognize that the government has a major stake in this. I think raising the consciousness of the consumer to look at what they are paying for gas, and the holiday weekend issue - it may all be media stuff, but I commend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for hyping up consumer awareness and having the gas-busters go around and make sure that people are watching the price of gas.

What this bill is really dealing with is the financial issue of collecting the taxes when they are due.

I think there are a couple of numbers that are worth knowing for the public. The issue of the ambient temperature or the temperature of motor fuel and the pricing is a reasonable solution to a very complicated problem. When you change the temperature or you change the specific gravity of a product, you have a different volume. So there was all this discrepancy between what you bought the fuel at and what it was shipped at. Everybody was taking these specific gravity measurements and there was this great adjustment to the price. There was some leakage in revenue based on temperature.

So what they've done is taken a uniform temperature for measuring and paying for the gasoline, and that will avoid that confusion in the future. I hope it will.

The federal government, I must say, in their report in 1997 - Mr McTeague brings it up in his report - say there has been an industry standard of 15 degrees. Arguably, the member for Quinte has said that's too high. Well, I suspect on both ends that will work its way out. I'm waiting for the member for Renfrew North on that, but I think there's a lot of time and a lot of money lost on that issue.

As well, I think the issue about the timeliness of payment, with the amount of revenue in this whole wheel going around on the fuel tax and fuel issues, is that the earlier the government gets the money, the less money the government will have to borrow in its cash flow syndrome. In our notes, it says that that particular change alone is worth some $4 million to $6 million to the province. Who is the province? The province is the taxpayer of Ontario. Whatever party is in government, that better use of taxpayers' money is fundamental to this change.

There will be other points made by all parties, and I'm interested in listening to a finance discussion on this particular bill. Thank you very much for your time.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Miclash: I was kind of amazed at the member for Durham East and his comment that he is a member of a government that doesn't want further taxation. I would just like to ask him where he was when Mr Harris decided that he was going to put a $37 registration fee on to the backs of the vehicle owners in northwestern Ontario and northern Ontario. They see that as the Mike Harris tax on gas. As you will know, we don't have access to transportation in the north as they would here in southern Ontario and in many urban regions of this province.

It was a saving to the individual who needed a car to get to work, to get to events, to the hospital, to whatever; and again, a tax that came on the heels of Mike Harris.

He went on to talk about these gas-busters. I actually thought, when the minister came out with this idea, that they were to do something. They did absolutely nothing in terms of gas prices in northern Ontario. He himself admitted that it was a media event for the Mike Harris government which did nothing: a considerable waste of money. Maybe not the waste of money and the magnitude the Ministry of Community and Social Services would do in terms of the Andersen affair, but a terrible waste of taxpayers' money.

I think back to 1990, when we had a member running in Sudbury East who suggested that there was going to be equalization of gas prices across the province. I was quite excited when she became the Minister of Northern Development and sat there for five years. We still don't have equalization of gas prices across the province.

Again, I would just like to say to this member: a lot of rhetoric leading to nothing in terms of saving the taxpayers' dollars on gas.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to rise in response to the comments from the member for Quinte and the member for Durham East, both of whom I've grown to respect tremendously, and the comments they make on pieces of legislation. I will often listen very attentively. I say to both members as well, no bill passes by the scrutiny especially of the member for Durham East, who regularly gives us his thoughts on bills. Whether it's a finance bill, whether it's a rather non-controversial bill like this one, or some other pieces of legislation that elicit much more attention, Durham East always has some very relevant comments.

Of course, listening to the debate of the member for Quinte alone convinced me to vote for this legislation when the time comes. The member for Quinte is a small businessman who for some time ran his own gas station, and I think as well typifies the type of small business person who has become involved in government not, I guess, to govern or to defend government, but to bring changes, to make government work for the people, to ensure that taxpayers get the right benefits for their hard-earned tax dollars.

I think it's very fitting when we speak of Bill 74 that the member for Quinte, both with his experience in the gas industry and with that stance of somebody who's come in here to make government work for the people, speaks on behalf of Bill 74, which is precisely that: to ensure that the gasoline tax, fuel tax, is administered more efficiently, and, importantly, because of that more efficient approach to bringing in the fuel taxes, to tightening that up - I think every 36 days is current - bring savings to the taxpayer. It will improve the cash flow of the province and at the same time, because of that, it will cause the interest on the debt to be reduced.

Again, I enjoyed the comments from Quinte and from Durham East and look forward to hearing them speak even more often on this important piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?

The member for Quinte, two minutes.

Mr Rollins: I want to th