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

September 30, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L100 - Mon 30 Sep 1996 / Lun 30 Sep 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

FRONTIERS FOUNDATION

ELI LILLY CANADA

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

USER FEES

DURHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE

MARTINGROVE EXPRESS PEE WEE BASEBALL TEAM

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

HIGHWAY SAFETY

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

HIGHWAY SAFETY

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ONTARIO PRODUCE

AMATEUR SPORT

YOUNG OFFENDERS

RENT REVIEW

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

BEAR HUNTING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SALE OF AMMUNITION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

CHILD ABUSE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

RENT REGULATION / RÉGLEMENTATION DES LOYERS

HIGHWAY SIGNS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

BEAR HUNTING

TAX REDUCTION

FIREARMS CONTROL

USER FEES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Since the Tory government has refused to refer my private member's Bill 60 to one of its standing committees and allow the people of this province to speak on this piece of legislation, I have taken upon myself to travel eastern and northern Ontario to gather public input on the issue of labour mobility in the construction industry. I held six public hearings in as many cities in only four nights. It was an exhausting exercise, but certainly not in vain.

I have here a transcript of the comments of the people of Ontario and what should be done to put an end to the unfair situation that the Ontario construction industry is in at the present time. I want to present a copy to Labour Minister Elizabeth Witmer in order for her to realize how important it is for her to stop the useless negotiations with the Quebec government and take action now in order to give Ontario construction workers and contractors the opportunity to earn a decent living.

FRONTIERS FOUNDATION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Monsieur le Président, vous allez me permettre, bien sûr, de vous féliciter pour votre poste de Président de l'Assemblée législative.

On June 1, I wrote the Honourable Al Leach regarding the cancellation of funding for the Frontiers Foundation. His response, of course, and you've guessed it, cited deficit reduction as the reason for the cut. Consequently 38 families in northern Ontario, living in deplorable shelter, are counting on Frontiers volunteers for new or renovated homes this season. The budget announced $10 million for a new program: the volunteer linkages initiative. It is intended, of course, to promote and encourage the spirit and commitment of volunteers in communities across Ontario.

The Frontiers Foundation epitomizes what community voluntarism is all about. Here we have nothing short of a proven package, an agency that works for people and with people, and yet the government has put $10 million on hold. Why is that? For the sake of budget reduction; that's what they tell us.

Let me share with you a true story. This is what it's all about: This is before; this is after. As a result of their stalling, 38 heads of families, like this proud resident of Whitefish, will go back to living under these conditions. They have to carry the guilt. They can fix it.

ELI LILLY CANADA

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Today I wish to congratulate the Eli Lilly pharmaceutical company on the expansion of its Scarborough plant. On September 26 Eli Lilly Canada opened a new state-of-the-art research and development facility at its Danforth Avenue headquarters. This $25-million investment makes Eli Lilly Canada one of the leading research concerns in North America.

When I moved to Scarborough as a boy in 1955, Eli Lilly had already been in the area for nearly 10 years. They've been an important pillar in my community for over half a century. Eli Lilly's first involvement in Canadian health care came in the early 1920s, when it collaborated with Dr Fred Banting and Dr Charles Best to produce the world's first insulin.

Eli Lilly continues to make miracles happen today with a sense of urgency true to their motto, "The patient is waiting." They're working on new medicines for heart disease, cancer, schizophrenia, AIDs-related illnesses and osteoporosis, to name just a few.

By choosing to invest $25 million in Scarborough, Eli Lilly is saying yes to their community by offering 100 high-tech jobs for Canada's best and brightest scientists; they are saying yes to Scarborough by purchasing abandoned chop shops and crack houses in the area, revitalizing some urban problems; they are saying yes to those who are waiting for medicines and treatments that will change their lives for the better.

We must continue to nurture companies such as Eli Lilly. We too know the patient is waiting.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): With certain clarity the Attorney General stood before this House last session and firmly stated that his changes to the family support plan would "provide fast payment to those within the plan who are awaiting cheques." It is painfully obvious that his changes are not working. It is clear that when the minister spoke of "fast payments," he had no idea that his changes were going to have a disastrous effect on the system and that many single parents would be so callously affected.

It is also evident that when the minister spoke of improving efficiencies within the system, he was clearly unaware that reductions of staff in the family support plan would result in a severe disruption of the distribution of payments. When I reminded him that it didn't take a genius to figure out that service would severely deteriorate if he reduced the number of staff involved in the process, he laughed at me.

Sadly, the minister's mistakes and errors in judgement are no laughing matter. Those changes have resulted in hardship for many single parents. Each day in my office I get several calls from single parents who don't have enough money to feed their children.

Have a heart, I say to the minister. Restore the funding to the family support plan.

USER FEES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I would like to offer my congratulations to you on your election to that very responsible position and assure you that in your job you will hear from us in particular on this side of the House some stories that will be of interest and should be of some concern to you and to the government.

The member for Lake Nipigon from my caucus, who spoke before me, shared with you some of the pain and suffering that's going on out there, some of the diminishing of service that people are experiencing. I myself just this past summer was sitting on the sideline watching my son play soccer when, unsolicited, this woman came up to me and told me a story that made me question just exactly what this government is about and what it's doing.

She talked of her service as a person who delivers Meals on Wheels and visiting an elderly woman whom she couldn't find when she first went to the door, who on further search was in a bedroom crying because on that day she had gone to her pharmacy to look for her usual medication and was told she couldn't have the pills that she normally gets if she didn't have the money up front to pay for the dispensing fee which this government has imposed on all of the seniors across this province. She was told to be satisfied with eight pills, to go home, and when she had more money she could come back and get more.

This is an elderly woman, a woman who has paid her dues, a woman who has contributed to the wellbeing of all of us in this province, and she is afraid of what this government is going to do to her.

DURHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): In April 1996 I made a statement in this House congratulating the Durham Board of Education on its nomination for the 1996 Carl Bertelsmann Prize. I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the tremendous honour that has been presented to the Durham board and particularly to an institution which finds itself in the fine riding of Durham Centre and the town of Whitby, namely, Sinclair Secondary School.

This government has acknowledged the excellence of the Durham board since last April, not last week, like the opposition. The school and the Durham Board of Education were recipients of the 1996 Carl Bertelsmann Prize for excellence and innovation in educational programming. The board, which was the only North American nominee, was chosen from among seven public school authorities from around the world to receive the prize, which includes a cheque for approximately $300,000.

The Carl Bertelsmann Foundation holds a symposium each year on a different topic, this year's being education. There were eight criteria involved, and the Durham board was judged to be superior in all of these areas.

I was pleased to represent the government of Ontario at the symposium and also at the ceremony where this prestigious award was conferred, along with the professional educators of the Durham board, at no expense to Ontario taxpayers, I might add.

At the Legislature today are Mr Norm Green, who is the senior staff development coordinator, and Ms Laura Elliott, superintendent of schools. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Durham board.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As the Conservative government of Michael Harris begins to close hospitals across the province, the people of St Catharines and the Niagara region are becoming justifiably concerned that the Minister of Health will be setting his sights on one or more of the major health care institutions in our community. Witness Thunder Bay and Sudbury.

The St Catharines General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital have all served the people of St Catharines exceedingly well over the years and will be needed well into the future as an aging population seeks the services of these outstanding health care facilities.

No one in our community will recall Conservative candidates or leader Mike Harris promising to close hospitals in the Niagara region. Severe funding cuts, such as $9 million at the General, and significant budget reductions at the Hotel Dieu and Shaver, however, do not bode well for our hospitals in the years ahead.

Faced with these drastic funding cuts imposed by the Conservative government and threatening comments from the Minister of Health, local health councils and restructuring commissions are looking at the unthinkable: the closing of local hospitals.

I call upon the Minister of Health to assure the people of St Catharines that the General, the Hotel Dieu and the Shaver hospitals will not be closed and that they will be funded adequately in the years ahead.

Canadians have always valued a high-quality health care system, accessible to all, and the closing of much-needed hospital facilities in Niagara will not contribute to the medical wellbeing of our residents.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Earlier this month the current Minister of Community and Social Services received a report from the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services dealing with restructuring in the child care field. One of the problems with the passage of time here is that the former PA and the current minister are actually one and the same, so we have the situation where Ms Ecker is receiving a report from herself and has to decide whether to act upon her own recommendations.

This should give all of us pause for concern, particularly given the nature of the recommendations. Briefly, let me highlight a couple of them.

One recommendation is to eliminate the wage subsidies to child care workers. That's going to take $4,500 on average per year out of the pockets of already poorly paid, predominantly female, workers who take care of our kids.

Another recommendation is to increase the ratio of children to early childhood educators in the classroom. Imagine having nine two-year-olds running around that you have to take care of, that you have to train, have to educate, and that you have to diaper on top of all of that. Quality is going to suffer.

The minister says this is going to give parents greater choice and greater equity. I don't see greater equity, particularly not for child care workers, and I don't see greater choice, particularly not in terms of quality care.

The minister doesn't have public plans to consult. We say she should be holding full-scale hearings, get some reports. Don't just listen to yourself, Minister.

MARTINGROVE EXPRESS PEE WEE BASEBALL TEAM

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'd like to rise in the House today to congratulate the players and coaches of the Martingrove Express Pee Wee Baseball team from Etobicoke, who won the Canadian National Pee Wee Baseball championship in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, on August 24.

This fine group of young athletes defeated a team from St Catharines to win the Ontario title. Once in PEI, they went undefeated in the round robin, defeating a team from Nova Scotia in the semi-finals, and then won their final gold medal game, defeating a squad from Abbotsford, British Columbia, in front of 3,500 fans.

The Martingrove Express Pee Wee team was the first Etobicoke team to advance to and win the national title. Their flawless play and sportsmanship was recognized not only by tournament officials but by their opponents as well, making them excellent ambassadors for Etobicoke.

My congratulations go out to all the players and their coaches, Peter D'Uva and John Donaldson, for an excellent winning season.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): At this time I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Grant Mitchell, the leader of the official opposition of the province of Alberta. Please join us in welcoming our guest.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I wish to inform the House that today is the first day of AIDS Awareness Week. One year ago I stood as Minister of Health in this House to acknowledge the importance of this week and the tragedy of AIDS. At that time I was pleased to announce that Dr Anne Phillips and Mr David Kelley would serve as the new co-chairs of the Ontario Advisory Committee on AIDS/HIV.

Sadly, this AIDS Awareness Week I regret to inform members of David Kelley's passing in April. As anyone who knew him can attest, David was a uniquely genuine, humane and dedicated person. He is much missed by all those who had the privilege of knowing him.

But while David's extraordinary contribution to the fight against AIDS is sorely missed, it is not forgotten by those who will carry on his work. I'm pleased that Andrew Lafontaine has agreed to serve as the new co-chair of the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS. Andrew has a long history of work in AIDS at the federal level, at the AIDS Committee of Ottawa, and more recently in Toronto.

David Kelley's passing reminds us all that AIDS is still exacting a terrible toll on its citizens. It reminds us that we still need more prevention education. We still need to provide treatment, care and support for those already infected and affected. We still need more research, and we still need a cure. That is why AIDS is a priority for this government. That is why we have a five-part plan to combat HIV and AIDS.

First, I am pleased to announce today a reinvestment of $2 million to begin an HIV viral load testing program here in the province of Ontario, which will be fully operational by the new year. With a viral load testing program, Ontario will be on the leading edge of HIV therapy. We are one now of only two provinces to offer this breakthrough test which measures the amount of HIV in a person's blood. Results can be used to make appropriate decisions about anti-retroviral drug therapy.

Evidence shows that lowering the viral load with anti-retroviral therapy decreases the risk of progression to serious HIV disease, AIDS or death. This will allow people with HIV to continue leading productive lives longer.

First, I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS and the Viral Load Working Group, who have developed guidelines for the use of this test.

Second, between June 1995 and July 1996 this government has spent more than $11 million to provide HIV and AIDS patients with important AIDS drugs. This is about a $5-million increase in drug funding from the previous year.

Third, my ministry took steps to reduce the amount of paperwork that doctors had to complete to give people living with HIV and AIDS easier access to 3TC and Saquinavir, making these drugs available to physicians on the facilitated access list. 3TC and Saquinavir show a great deal of promise for people with HIV and have been helpful in keeping them healthier longer. The slashing of red tape and paperwork ensures that these drugs are more readily available to the people who need them most.

Fourth, this government has fully maintained funding levels for community-based AIDS programs. This allows communities to operate programs that meet their needs, such as counselling and education.

Lastly, I have asked the federal Minister of Health to extend the national AIDS strategy. In Ontario, we have developed a funded infrastructure that allows us to respond to provincial issues in a timely fashion and we have a plan to the year 2000 that identifies priorities for action, but it's very important that we have a national strategy so that the response to AIDS does not become a patchwork depending on which province you happen to be living in. I have written to the Honourable David Dingwall, federal Minister of Health, asking that he clear up the doubts that exist regarding the program's future and provide details about the next phase of the national AIDS strategy.

Setting aside all partisan differences, I would encourage all members to voice their support for a national AIDS strategy. Our government, as I noted, has identified AIDS as a priority area, and our motto of putting patients first has been more than backed up by our actions. We have protected community-based funding in the AIDS bureau budget and we are reinvesting new dollars into treatment and care, including new drug therapies and, today, viral load testing.

With prevention education, we can try to curb the spread of HIV and AIDS. With research and medical advances, we can eradicate it. We all look forward to the day when I won't have to, as Minister of Health, rise in the House to remind everyone of how important it is to be diligent in fighting this deadly disease.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Before I begin I want to indicate to the House that the French translation of this statement has not been completed as I rise, but it will be here momentarily. If members have no objections I will proceed, and the French translation should be here within a few minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Runciman: I rise today to inform the House about an important and innovative safety program initiated by the Ontario Provincial Police. Beginning tomorrow, every OPP officer in the greater Toronto region will be available for highway patrol on the 400 series highways during the morning and evening rush-hour.

This program has been named All Hands on Deck, and when I say every officer will be available, that's exactly what I mean. Regardless of rank, everyone, including the regional commander, will be called upon to patrol the rush-hour. The effect will be to put an extra 31 marked cruisers on the highways when we need them most. This will almost double the number of OPP vehicles patrolling our busiest highways at the busiest periods of the day.

This is exactly the kind of imaginative approach to policing we need. Getting senior officers out from behind their desks to patrol the highways at rush-hour is an excellent way to increase the front-line police presence where it is needed most.

All Hands on Deck is an extension of the very successful Highway Ranger program instituted last August as part of the government's comprehensive road safety plan. Working in three teams, the Highway Rangers are out to target the bad drivers, the speeders, the tailgaters and the drunk drivers. So far, the Rangers have issued 40,000 cautions and another 15,000 tickets. They also found laptop computers taped to steering wheels and instances of music enthusiasts using drumsticks to tap on the steering wheel, just another case of hands-free driving.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to announce that the OPP's fourth Highway Ranger unit will hit the road tomorrow. A special 15-member team will begin nabbing bad drivers on Highways 401, 402 and 403 in the London area. In a month's time, a fifth team of Highway Rangers begins work in the eastern region.

The Highway Rangers are only one part of this government's comprehensive road safety plan announced last October. The plan is designed to boost road safety in three key areas: enforcement, truck safety and keeping drunk drivers off the road. You will certainly be aware of the recent efforts by my colleague the Minister of Transportation to pull bad trucks off the road, and the administrative licence suspension program, where motorists charged with impaired driving lose the right to drive on the spot, will be here in time for the holiday season.

These programs are a testament to the government's continuing commitment to public safety and effective front-line policing. Recent statistics show our road safety plan is working. The OPP recorded 13% fewer highway deaths for the first half of this year. That's proof our plan is making our roads safer for all Ontarians.

On Wednesday, I'll witness our efforts at first hand when I join OPP Commander Bill Currie in the cruiser for his first All Hands on Deck patrol during the morning rush-hour.

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): First, I'd like to begin by acknowledging and expressing condolences on the passing of Mr David Kelley, truly an outstanding activist in the province. He will be missed. However, his contribution really made a difference in the fight against AIDS and HIV.

I would say to the minister in a non-partisan sense, as I have exhibited before in this House, that I share his desire to see a continuation of the national strategy. However, I would say to him that Ontario has always been a leader in the development of a strategy for Ontario and I would hope that he would not shirk his responsibilities while attempting to wait, because there are many unmet needs.

You mentioned today funding for anti-viral load testing, and that's one example of where I believe that you shirked your responsibility. British Columbia has had that program and testing in place for some time. It's about time Ontario showed the community that we maintain our commitment to those who are infected, who are living with AIDS and HIV, and we are sad to see the minister wait so long before he would make that announcement.

I would also say there are many who do not have adequate access to drugs. We know there are many in need of psychosocial supports, and while the minister has said he has maintained funding for community-based education, and those programs are extremely important, many are concerned about his $1.3 billion in cuts to the hospitals and the effect that will have on the programs serving not only those who are dealing with AIDS and HIV but all those in the province who need access to care, which is in jeopardy because of the cuts this minister is allowing to happen in a haphazard, ad hoc way which we know is going to have a negative effect on our communities.

Similarly, there's nothing in here to assure those who deliver primary care to those suffering with HIV and AIDS and their families. We know the primary care reform model offers no incentive to family doctors who need those kinds of incentives so they can deliver care to those people in need.

This is an inadequate statement for the start of a very important recognition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to comment on the Solicitor General's announcement today and say that we certainly hope the program works. I find it mildly curious that first the Solicitor General has cut his budget, so our police organizations are working with fewer resources. Then I gather the minister said, "This is the number one priority, ahead of drug enforcement, ahead of serious crime, ahead of organized crime."

The commander, I gather, will climb in his vehicle at the height of rush-hour, get on the 401 and join the rest of the parking lot, where the commander will be tied up for several hours making his way along a few kilometres. That's probably useful, but we had thought the commander may have been focusing on several other issues as well.

We see in the budget the Solicitor General's budget cut -- fewer resources -- but I gather he's ordered police cars from around the province to come to this area. On Wednesday morning Commander Currie and the Solicitor General will move on to the 401 parking lot, and we'll see the commander spending three hours making his way along a few kilometres of the road. I gather that's the priority. Certainly safety is extremely important, and we hope it works, but it is an unusual use, perhaps, of the commander and all his senior officers, with cars from around Ontario pulled off the road, making their way along the road.

We had thought maybe the Solicitor General would be making an announcement. Certainly the Minister of Transportation has announced many times his great programs to fix the wheel problem, and the day after he announced it more wheels fall off. The wheels have been coming off the government since they got elected.

"All hands on deck Wednesday morning -- Commander Currie." I'd love to be there, but of course I won't be invited for the photo op. The Solicitor General will wail off as he moves into that parking lot, and we dearly hope it works very well because certainly it is a priority for all of us.

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I'd like to join with the minister and the Liberal critic, the member for Oriole, and all members of the assembly in recognizing AIDS Awareness Week in Canada and in Ontario.

I also think it would be appropriate for all of us to pay tribute to the organizers of and participants in the many walkathons that took place across the province yesterday, where community support and understanding were shown with respect to this very tragic disease. Lots of money was raised as well, which obviously will go into services and supports in every corner of this province.

I agree with the minister that more needs to be done in this province in terms of prevention, more in terms of research and more in terms of support. I think the minister would agree that the support system and the health care system that are in place are still spotty in the province in terms of the strengths and where there are weaknesses of providing supports and health care supports for people living with AIDS.

I want to congratulate the minister for funding the viral load testing program. I can't comment in the same way that the critic has for the Liberal Party about whether it should have been sooner. All I can say is that it was appropriate that it was announced today and I congratulate the minister for doing it.

But I want to emphasize that I think the minister needs to show more leadership in terms of providing more support so that those who are living with AIDS can expect the same level of health care and community supports all across the province of Ontario, not just in urban areas and not just in Metropolitan Toronto. Even in Metropolitan Toronto more needs to be done.

I agree with the critic from the Liberal Party when she says that the minister has got to also understand that the kinds of cuts that he has announced to date, the $1.3 billion in our health care system and our hospital system, all sorts of cuts in community and social services and services that do provide support for people living with AIDS, have to be recognized as well. Those cuts are hurting people, whether they're using our health care for other reasons or whether they're people who are living with AIDS.

Today's announcement in Sudbury is another one of those announcements that will have an impact on how accessible health care is for everyone in that particular community. It's fine to come here today and paint a rosy picture, but I think the minister has to understand that his cuts are hurting. A $2-million announcement of reinvestment does not make up for the $1.3 billion worth of cuts.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In regard to the comments made today in the Legislature by the Solicitor General, I just have to say that I am beginning to see that the cuts that this provincial government has done towards the OPP are really having an effect and where the government in its own admission here today is saying that they're short-manned when it comes to being able to do the work in the province of Ontario that police officers need to do to keep our communities safe.

By you taking the police and putting them all out on the 400 series highways in the morning and in rush-hour traffic I wonder what's going to happen in our communities. I wonder what's going to happen in the neighbourhoods where we won't have police to be able to respond to what's happening in regard to crime in those communities when they're all out on the highway trying to nab speeders who could have been caught by photo-radar if you'd kept it in place in the first place.

I look at this and I wonder, what are we going to call these people? Are these people going to be the Runciman Rangers? It sounds to me almost that what you're trying to do here is you're trying to develop a highway patrol program with the existing police officers within the Ontario Provincial Police to go out and to try to nab people on the 400 series highways.

I say we need police within our communities. We need police in order to make our communities safe. I think that having all of the police officers out on the 400 series highways, although we need to be able to deal with that issue, could be done more effectively by other means such as photo-radar. I would ask the minister to go back and look at that rather than looking at that through his political eyeglasses as he normally does.

I just want to also comment quickly on the initiative in regard to pulling all the bad trucks off the road that the Minister of Transportation is going to be working on aggressively. I want to remind the minister that it was your federal cousins the Tories back under Brian Mulroney who deregulated the trucking industry in the first place.

When that was done, federal New Democrats and provincial New Democrats said it would lead to highways being much more unsafe for commuters and for people on highways because trucks would become unsafe and that would lead to accidents and that would lead to loss of life, and that's exactly what's happened. I think by the minister moving forward in the way that he does admits in the first place that truck deregulation was a bad idea at the time, and it's proving out to be a worse one as we see the fatalities piling up.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, today in the gallery we are joined by Matthew Dolmage. Matthew is here with his father Jim. I wanted to introduce you to Matthew. Matthew is 22 years old. He uses an electric wheelchair to move around and a computer and sign language to communicate. His hobbies include music, computers, game shows and television. He also has spina bifida. Despite that disability Matthew has been able to live at home with his parents because they have been supported by the special services at home program.

Minister, as you know, for some 13,000 families in the province of Ontario, the difference between being able to stay at home or being placed in an institution or a group home at great public expense is their access to the support of the special services at home program. Yet families who depend on that program are now facing across the province, on average, a 30% cut in their funding support. In Matthew's case the cut was 50%. I suggest to you that where these children are concerned, where these young people are concerned, no cut in their support is acceptable.

In opposition, your Premier said that these special-needs families should be a priority. Matthew wants to know why you have imposed these cuts on them and on others who need special support at home. Can you tell him why, Minister?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think parents who have a child at home whom they care for in this manner to keep them out of an institution are to be congratulated and are to be supported. That is one of the reasons why the special services at home program has not been cut. We've maintained the priority on it because we think it's extremely important to provide support for families such as the one that the honourable member has mentioned.

Mrs McLeod: I suggest that the minister try and convince Matthew and his family that their support has not been cut when in fact it's been cut by 50%. I suggest you talk to the 13,000 families across the province who are seeing similar kinds of cuts in their programs and the support they need. You might want to come and talk to the families who have been forced to put their children into foster care because without the support they need, they cannot manage the stress of caring for their children at home any longer. Minister, the reality is that these families are getting cuts in their programs and it is difficult for them to manage.

I also think it's important for you to know how strongly your Premier advocated on behalf of people like Matthew and the families who need special services at home support when he was in opposition. I take you back to December 7, 1994, right here in the Legislature, when Mike Harris asked the government of the day to double the budget of the very program that helps Matthew stay at home. Instead of that, the families are seeing large cuts in their support.

In the Common Sense Revolution, you promised that a Mike Harris government would not cut funding to people with disabilities. Your government has broken that promise. I ask you today, will you commit to doubling the funding of this program, as Mike Harris had demanded in opposition? If not, can you explain to Matthew why your government's actions now are so different from the words of your Premier when he was in opposition?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the member knows, this program has not been cut because we think it is extremely important to provide a support for the families. Those families are assessed annually to determine the need they have, and that is what we try to do to make sure that we are meeting their needs. We are also maintaining other supports for those who have developmentally disabled children in the community because, again, we believe that's an important support.

It's a very difficult decision. No matter how much you try to do to stretch those dollars, there's never enough to meet the needs we have. That's why we're working so hard with those community agencies to try and restructure out there so that those supports are there and as much money as possible can go directly to those families.

I'd certainly be pleased to meet with the honourable member at the end of question period to talk about the specifics and have officials look into the specifics of this particular case, because of course there is an appeal mechanism for families who feel the decisions that have been made around their care are not appropriate.

Mrs McLeod: I say to the minister that the Dolmages are here today because they want to highlight the concern of the 13,000 families across this province who are receiving special services at home support and whose support has been cut. That is the reality for these families, Minister.

There is also a reality for families who are on a waiting list waiting for support because the dollars, as you yourself I think have just acknowledged, are simply not enough to meet the needs. It is not one particular case, Minister. The data are there, the information is there, the reality of cuts to families is there for you to see. What is needed is for this government to keep a commitment that you made in your Common Sense Revolution and that your Premier demanded the previous government to meet, and that was to increase the funding for the program.

When Mike Harris demanded the doubling of this program funding back in 1994, he did so because of a very tragic incident, and I don't want to re-raise the incident. I think you will recall the tragic event of Cathie Wilkieson and her disabled son. We don't want to wait until we face another tragedy for your government to act on what it understood to be a need two years ago. We certainly don't want to see more families forced to put their children into foster care.

Your cuts are having a devastating impact on these families, Minister, and I simply ask you again, will you do as your Premier demanded that the previous government do? Will you keep your promise to Matthew Dolmage, to his family? Will you double the funding for the special services at home program so that the cuts to these families can be reversed?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the honourable member's concern, but I must stress again that the amount of money that is there to support special-needs children and for those who are caring for their children at home, we are maintaining that funding. We are trying to meet the needs of more families with that funding, because we agree that it's a very, very important support for those in the community.

That's also why we are meeting and working very closely with the disabled community to try and make sure that we can restructure those services out there in the community so that there are more supports so that we can stretch those dollars further to meet the needs of more families. It's very difficult. We're working very hard to try and do it because I think those families deserve as much support as we can give them. That is our objective and our goal.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is directed to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you know, just a few hours ago, the Big Blue Tory bulldozer went through my community of Sudbury under the guise of the Health Services Restructuring Commission. It ransacked the entire city; it ransacked the entire region; it ransacked every surrounding community, including all the communities of northeastern Ontario, leaving them without hospitals, leaving them without nurses and leaving them without health care.

Today, the people of Sudbury have been informed by the minister's hand-picked hospital restructuring commission that the Sudbury region, an area of population of approximately 165,000 as its base in the surrounding areas in all of northeastern Ontario, has lost two of its hospitals.

Last Thursday, Minister, I asked you if you would support a recommendation to close the Sudbury General Hospital and the Memorial Hospital. I ask you again, are you in support of your hand-picked commission's recommendation?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the honourable member for his question on behalf of his community. All of the concerns that members of that community may have, the honourable member knows that the process is very clear. Those concerns are to be addressed to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. There is now a 30-day period for the community to express its concerns, to tell the commission what it got right and what it got wrong, and at the end of the day the Health Services Restructuring Commission will make decisions as to improving patient care in Sudbury and other cities around the province.

Mr Bartolucci: The people of Sudbury, the people of northeastern Ontario don't want a process answer. Don't worry about the process. The people of northeastern Ontario will respond to the process. I'm not worried about that. You again refuse to answer a commitment that you had made earlier to the health service providers when you said there would be two sites, nothing else would be recognized or acknowledged or supported.

That aside, could you please tell me what you're going to say to the 365 full-time workers at Memorial Hospital, the 519 full-time workers at the Sudbury General Hospital, for a total of 915 full-time jobs? What about the 445 part-time workers at the Sudbury General Hospital and the 303 part-time workers at the Memorial Hospital, for a total of 748 jobs? You have robbed the Sudbury region of much of its economic base through the closing of these two hospitals. What do you say to these people who will be losing their jobs in 1997?

Hon Mr Wilson: Ontario is the last province to undergo hospital restructuring. We've had advice from political parties of other stripes who represent governments in other provinces. I can remember Mr Ramsey, the NDP health minister in BC, telling me last Christmas when he had the Shaughnessy Hospital, the first teaching hospital in Canada -- where the doors of that hospital closed, but the services amalgamated with other hospitals down the street. The very first thing that one must put in place, we learn from the other provinces, is a human resources plan.

I know the commission is aware of the importance of the human resources and the expertise in the hospital system in Sudbury and other places. Their first challenge is, in my opinion, to make sure that the training is available, that they recommend to the government that the training programs be available, that at the end of the day the restructuring be done but also that we try and keep the expertise and the services in place.

At the end of the day, what the judgement will be is whether access and quality have increased and whether patients are better off as a result of restructuring. I know from the public statements the commission has made to date that this is what is driving the restructuring and this is what is foremost in their minds as they make their difficult decisions.

Mr Bartolucci: Let's be perfectly clear and let's make sure that all the members of the House know that during the campaign the Tory candidate in Sudbury, Richard Zanibbi, held a press conference at Memorial Hospital guaranteeing Memorial Hospital would not close. The minister guaranteed the Catholic community that the Sudbury General Hospital wouldn't close. Two broken Tory promises. The one commitment they're going to make is that they're going to wreak havoc on the health care community by withdrawing $1.3 billion out of the hospital system so that people who are sick won't be able to get access to proper care.

Let's put it on a very simple level. Maybe you could answer the question:

(1) How can you withdraw $42 million from the global budget and expect that you're going to have better health care?

(2) How can you invest $3.5 million in repatriation beds, which will provide between 16 and 20, when everybody, every provider, has told you that 100 repatriated beds are necessary? Can you answer that two-part question?

Hon Mr Wilson: The first

part is the $1.3 billion. I can tell you that life would be a lot easier if his federal counterparts would give us back the $2.1 billion they've taken from health and social services.

Second, I take the honourable members back to the jobs front. Our first investment, which is the largest single investment in the history of health care in Ontario, was $170 million to create 4,400 new nursing jobs and homemaking jobs in communities. To date, we've spent about $37 million of the $170 million because we're simply waiting for customers in many communities, including Windsor, throughout the southwest. You've had a tremendous increase in the home care budget in Sudbury over the last few years, as has Thunder Bay.

We have done what others failed to do, and that is to beef up community-based services to ensure that patients don't fall through the cracks as we get rid of the waste, the overlap and the duplication.

Finally, I'll say that every detail of the commission's announcement today has to be justified by the commission. I believe they're doing that. I would ask the honourable member to bring his concerns to their attention. They are the experts. They're provided with some of the best available data in the world today. They're backed up, to make sure quality isn't affected, by Dr David Naylor and the highly respected Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, their research team.

I am confident that at the end of the day, after the commission's had this 30 days and finds out what they did right and what they did wrong, it will have a recipe for better health care, where patients come first in our health care system. That's the direction we're going in; that's the direction the commission is leading us in.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is of significant importance to my community and to northeastern Ontario. The minister is saying that he can provide fewer health care dollars, fewer beds, fewer staff, and still come out with a better system? I challenge him to prove it.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): That is not a point of order.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My questions are also for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has said many times that the savings from hospital cuts -- he calls it hospital restructuring -- will be reinvested in health care services, so I want to ask the minister again here today to confirm this. Will the money from hospital restructuring be reinvested 100% in community-based health services?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The commitment that the government made was not to let the health care budget fall below $17.4 billion. We will fully live up to that commitment throughout the life of our government. Therefore, the budget will not fall below $17.4 billion and the money from hospital restructuring that we see -- this is all very theoretical right now -- will go into the health care system.

I remind the honourable member that when up to 85% of health care budgets are salaries and wages, no matter what institution you look at across this province, any investment or reinvestment is a reinvestment in people, in health care providers, whether they be doctors, nurses or people who clean the hospitals. That's what health care is. Health care is not the bricks and mortar. Buildings don't cure people; people do. All of our reinvestments have been in people.

Mr Hampton: The minister seems to have changed his tune. He has said, "The government made it very clear when Mr Eves made the announcement last year that $1.3 billion will come out of the hospital side of the ledger and be reinvested in community...." He's even said in this House, "Our first reinvestment of that money..." will actually be "$170 million into new community services." So initially the minister's story was that money that comes out of hospital restructuring will go into community services like long-term care. He's been around the province pronouncing that over and over again.

But a few weeks ago he said money out of hospitals would be used for doctors. Doctors are something different from community services. He knows very well the difference between community services and doctors' salaries. Which is it? How much of the money out of hospital closures will go to community services, which are meant to replace the services that are lost in the hospitals, and how much will go to paying doctors' salaries?

Hon Mr Wilson: That question would be laughable if it wasn't so sad coming from a leader of one of our three parties. Any investment in health care is an investment in people. The $170 million in home care and home therapies and nursing creates 4,400 nursing jobs and other jobs for home care providers.

Any investment -- the 19% decrease -- and the millions of dollars we put in cardiac surgeries this year to give us one of the best waiting lists in the country, which is an ironic term -- we're trying to get rid of waiting lists -- is the fact that this $10 million goes into doctors and the surgeries they perform and the nurses at their side. The Q-tips and swabs are a small part of the budget. It's the people who provide services.

I will not play this game of, "You get this and you get that." Any investment in health care -- and we're fully reinvesting dollars back into health care -- is an investment in people and an investment in providers. The tooth fairy does not provide community services. Doctors do. Nurses do. Home care workers do. They're real people. They will receive these reinvestment dollars.

Mr Hampton: The minister might want to gloss over this, but he knows full well that when you close hospitals, it means you will have to have outpatient services; and because the hospital doesn't exist any more, it means that outpatient services, which used to be provided in the hospital, have to come from somewhere else. He knows that you have to have rehabilitation services because the hospital is not there.

He knows, for example, that you have to have services for mothers; he knows that you have to have a whole list of community care services and home care services because the hospital is no longer there and the hospital used to provide those services. The minister said before that any money out of hospital structuring will go into community services. Now he says, "Some will go into community services and some will go to physicians," to pay for the mistakes he's made with respect to physicians.

Will you admit, while you're going across Ontario closing hospitals, that you will not provide the services that are being cut by way of new community services, that there's going to be a net loss of health care services to communities across this province?

Hon Mr Wilson: Throughout Canada, in areas where they've undergone the fundamental restructuring we're now undergoing, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that both access and quality increase when you're not spending money on a bus to shuttle people from three or four hospitals but you've got everybody in an excellent hospital site, and yes, a redeveloped site that will have increased outpatient services.

That's why, as the commission goes through the province, it's making its recommendations as to the millions of dollars in new money, in capital that has to go into Sudbury, the $48 million that went into Windsor, so that the facility that's left behind, the bricks and mortar, is state of the art, the very best, that the best people to provide those services are concentrated and are able to give their very best efforts forward without money being wasted in the system and services and tests being duplicated.

At the end of the day I agree with the honourable member that the test of restructuring is whether quality and access are maintained and indeed enhanced. When you get rid of the waste, the excessive administration -- look at the Perley Hospital in Ottawa: $35 per day, per patient in administration versus the average nursing home in this province, which is $5 per patient, per day in administration, oranges to oranges, exact comparisons -- you can no longer support seven times the administration cost. It's immoral. Those dollars belong to the patients, and we're driving them down to patient services.

We will not be deterred, because we're not supporting overhead administration waste and duplication. We're about putting the patients first, and that should be the job of all members of this House.

Mr Hampton: To sum it up, this is what it says: People are going to lose services in their hospitals, and this Minister of Health is not going to replace those services with community services. That's what it boils down to.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): New question

Mr Hampton: I want to read a short quote that comes from something called the Common Sense Revolution, something the government has suddenly dropped from its vocabulary, something it doesn't want to talk about any more, which says on page 7, "We will not cut health care spending." That's what they said.

Today the minister's hatchet commission was in Sudbury and his so-called Health Services Restructuring Commission announced that two of the three hospitals there are going to close. Sudbury General and Sudbury Memorial are going to close; $42 million a year will be taken out from health care in Sudbury despite the minister's promises in the Common Sense Revolution. So I want to ask, will the Minister of Health commit to reinvesting the full $42 million that you're cutting from Sudbury. Will you commit to reinvesting that full $42 million into health care services in Sudbury?

Hon Mr Wilson: While we're in the business of quotes, I would like to quote:

"We could save millions of dollars by looking at some rationalization in terms of the administration of some of these hospitals....

"If we think we have a problem in our health care system in Ontario today, and I do...if this government does not take the bull by the horns and start dealing with the problems in our health care system, the emergency and the crisis that we have today, in 1988, will look minimal compared to what we are going to have. The crisis is coming, the costs are escalating, and I beg the government to act before this system collapses."

I couldn't have said it better. That was the honourable Dave Cooke, MPP, in Hansard, May 12, 1988.

"I believe very strongly that in the rationalization of services the amalgamation of hospitals does make sense in certain circumstances." The honourable Dave Cooke, MPP, Hansard, October 21, 1986.

I can go on and quote Liberal health ministers. The difference is, we're taking politics out of the restructuring process. The previous government had its mind more to politics, more to pandering. We have said very clearly that we will not cut health care spending, and we have not. Secondly, we've said very clearly, and the people of Ontario have told us very clearly, that the status quo is not enough.

The Speaker: The question's been answered.

Hon Mr Wilson: The system needs to restructure, and that's what we're doing.

Mr Hampton: It was a simple question. It was a very simple question. You're taking $42 million a year out of Sudbury's hospitals. Your hatchet commission even says that. They're taking $42 million a year. My simple question to you is, are you going to reinvest that $42 million a year in community services so that in fact the health care budget in Sudbury is not cut, so that in fact people in Sudbury will not have to do without health care services, will not have to fly to Toronto to get the services? Will you reinvest the $42 million that your commission announced that you're cutting? Will you, yes or no?

Hon Mr Wilson: The $42 million will be reinvested in Ontario's health care system. It is ridiculous to think you're going to put $42 million worth of long-term-care services in Sudbury. There aren't enough customers in the entire region to use up that increase. They're not even able to use up many of the dollars we provided with $170 million.

Let's take an example. Rather than have somebody stay in hospital to be counselled by a nurse for an hour at $500 or $400 a day for a hospital bed, community services say you'd take that $400 or $500 and you'd purchase three nurses who could go in for three full days right in people's homes, and they can check to see if the crib is actually safe for the baby, and help the mother with the breast-feeding, and talk about the number one cause of readmissions, which is jaundice. That can be done in the home. It doesn't need to be done in a $400 or $500 hospital bed.

Only five years ago, when you had knee surgery in this province, you were in hospital five to seven days. Today you're out on the same day as long as there are no complications. Only five to seven years ago, cardiac surgery, you were in for five to seven days. Today you're out the same day. So we don't need the hotel functions --

The Speaker: Wrap it up.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- of many of the hospitals. Many of them lie half empty. The commission is consolidating those bricks and mortar. I agree with you --

The Speaker: Wrap it up.

Hon Mr Wilson: At the end of the day we will measure outcomes. We will measure whether patients are served and whether they have access to services. We want to increase access and increase patient services.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Let me cut through the rhetoric of the Minister of Health and remind him of two things. Firstly, under the restructuring plan that came forward under our government, which was a local community solution, our Minister of Health, Ruth Grier, made a specific commitment to my community, which was that 100% of the savings that came from restructuring would be reinvested in the Sudbury community. That's what we were prepared to do on behalf of the people in my community.

Your restructuring commission this morning made it clear that only one third of the savings to come from restructuring are going to come back to Sudbury for the community-based services we need. That is unacceptable.

I want to ask you one more time: Are you going to commit today, yes or no, that 100% of the savings from restructuring are going to come back to my community for the community services we need?

Hon Mr Wilson: We will ensure that the community-based services are in place, but I say to the honourable member that I have never been able to find in writing anywhere Ruth Grier having said that, or any responsible health minister, because I know they would never make that commitment.

Do you want me to stop the air ambulance just as it gets over Sudbury's air space because the people of Sudbury didn't pay for that shared service? Do you want me to stop the people from Sudbury from going to the Hospital for Sick Children, one of the world's best children's hospitals, that we all pay for out of the general health care budget? Do you want me to stop the tremendous research and the measurements of quality that are done by the Institute For Clinical Evaluative Sciences --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Folks, it's getting a little noisy in here. I'm finding it difficult to hear. Ask your questions and allow them to be answered. Please, let's have some order.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We've been asking a question that could be settled with a yes or no answer. We're not the ones who are going on and providing no answer.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. I can't give his answers for him. I just ask that we can be heard.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): We've heard the bad news about health care in Sudbury and northeastern Ontario today from my colleague, the disaster that's befallen them all. What I'd like to ask the Minister of Health about is the first stop for his restructuring commission, which was in Thunder Bay this past June. We went through the same shocked experience when it was announced in late June what the decisions were at that time.

What few people realize, though, is that the minister himself responded to the findings of the commission. The appeal process that he keeps talking about, he made his own personal submission. He also made it clear at that time in a media scrum that he would make his submission public, just like everyone else had, so the public could know what his position was on the restructuring process in Thunder Bay. But, Minister, you later refused to release your submission as promised.

The final verdict is coming down in Thunder Bay this coming Friday, October 4. The people in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario need and deserve to know what you have recommended for the health restructuring decision in Thunder Bay. We need to know. My question is this: Will you make your personal submission public today?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I was only informed of the commission's -- I'm sorry, you're talking about Thunder Bay; I was thinking of Sudbury. I just got their announcement, the same as everybody else did, today, so it will be a while before we have that response ready.

We're all learning in this process, is what I would say to the honourable member. This is the first time that we've decided to take the politics out of health care and to bring some fairness into the decision-making process. I know that the comments and data provided by the ministry are available under the freedom of information act and I think a number of people already have that document.

Mr Gravelle: Minister, that is absolutely astonishing. You try and separate yourself. You want to have the illusion of the commission being independent. You very publicly state you're going to make a submission in the appeal process to Thunder Bay; you make the submission; you publicly tell the media that you are going to release it; you then won't release it. Now you're just trying to act as if you're surprised by the question.

The effects of hospital restructuring are going to affect everybody in our region in northwestern Ontario for many, many years to come. You can't play with this. You're not just an ordinary citizen making a submission to the commission; you are the Minister of Health. You have an obligation to tell us what you said in that you said you would do that.

You made the submission; the people of Thunder Bay deserve to know it. If you won't release it to us publicly today, will you at least tell us here in the House what were the recommendations you made in terms of the restructuring process in Thunder Bay? Tell us today, right now. If it's available under freedom of information -- and I've made that request, I must say -- tell us today in the House what you've recommended.

Hon Mr Wilson: It's very clear that the ministry is a party to this process in terms of everyone else. In fact, some days I think I probably have less to say than you might imagine. You're freer than I am, because I don't want to unduly influence the process as minister. So you're freer than I am, probably, as a backbencher in the opposition, to go hammer away publicly at the commission for something you might not agree with. I have to take a more responsible position.

I can tell you that the report is a staff report, not the minister's report. I didn't sign it. It's a bunch of data on that -- which I couldn't explain to you because you wouldn't give me 10 hours in question period; there's not enough time today -- and that's available under the freedom of information.

The intention in the future -- because this question has come up many times; we're learning in this process too -- is to make public the reports that we send back to the commission. In the case of Thunder Bay, we didn't even think of doing it at the time. Now it's in the freedom of information process and I'll see if I can get you a copy of it.

Again, it's a staff report with data, and the commission takes that into account, as it does submissions from many, many other people and other experts who provide data, and, I must say, specifically the local data. The Ministry of Health data isn't always perfect, as you know, as to the number of doctors and services available in an area. So most important are the local submissions they get that actually give them a very clear picture of what services are in place and what services need to be enhanced.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Last week I raised the matter of a young offender who was being held in an adult segregation unit at Vanier Centre. Minister, as I'm sure you're aware by now, this youth was housed with two adult inmates on either side of her cell while she was in segregation. In fact, they could communicate with one another.

After that question, Minister, you told the press that if the policy directive dealing with the isolation of youth wasn't followed, appropriate action would be taken. I'd like to ask you today, what steps have you taken to look into this matter, were your policy and directive violated and what appropriate action was taken?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): When the issue was raised, the ministry instituted an investigation to ensure if the matters raised by the honourable member did in fact occur, and, if indeed they did occur, if there was a violation of ministry policy. We're awaiting that report.

Ms Lankin: Minister, this was four days ago I raised this. This is with respect to a young offender. We had a young offender who was killed in one of our provincial institutions. You said after that that you'd taken steps to make sure that no young offender would ever be housed in an adult segregation unit.

I raised a serious allegation, one which I know you will find to be true, and you're sitting here today and telling us that you don't know the answer to this, that you didn't take the time to get the answer from your ministry to ensure that youth were being protected?

Minister, your own policy -- and let me tell you, we can't get any cooperation from your ministry, from your ADM's office. We ask for copies of directives, copies of policies, and we're told to use the freedom of information to get them. We've had to get it through other sources.

Your own YOA operational policy and procedures of January 1996 says clearly, "Young persons in designated youth facilities and units are kept separate and apart from adult offenders." That's not what is happening, not in the case I raised with you last week, and there are other examples of that at this same institution.

Minister, I just don't understand. Do you not care? How is this not a contravention of your policy, your directives? When are you going to take control of your ministry?

Hon Mr Runciman: In fact, they are kept separate. They're kept in separate cells. We have a number of young offender facilities in the province that are in adult institutions. That's not a new situation. The member should be well aware of that. She worked in the corrections business herself for some time.

What we're talking about in terms of separation is they are separated from the adults in terms of the cell; they do not share cell space. That is the policy and it's the policy that was in place during the member's government.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, if our economy is to expand and if our society is to thrive, then we must not only recognize the importance of agriculture; we must also invest in its growth and prosperity. These are some of the messages I've been hearing at farm meetings and up and down the back roads this summer.

Agriculture is a priority investment in my view, an investment in an industry that, as we know, generates more than $50 billion a year in direct economic activity; only our auto industry is larger. I would point out, however, that although not everyone drives, everyone eats. Can the minister tell the Legislature what he is doing to further increase Ontario's agrifood exports and promote our agrifood products?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my honourable colleague for that question. It is a good-news question.

The government, the Premier, the minister and the ministry are working very hard to increase our penetration into foreign markets, particularly the market in the Pacific Rim, which is an opening market, a market with tremendous potential. I must tell this House that a week ago today 20 top Japanese officials were hosted by the ministry and the private sector and indeed they were --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Yes, they were here to explore the business climate in Ontario. The Premier spoke with them and do you know, Mr Speaker, they liked the business climate in the province of Ontario and they are here to invest. They are here to import food products. Presently, we're exporting almost $5 billion a year. We're aiming to double that shortly into the next century.

So to my honourable colleague, this is good news when we're talking about food producers, the farmers of Ontario. They are on the leading edge and this government is supporting them with $15 million of new money, Grow Ontario money, a $20-million rebate on the capital improvements that they will be doing to become more efficient and to produce more food for that export market that is out there. So this is good news. The food producers of Ontario are doing an excellent job.

Mr Barrett: My riding of Norfolk is one of the more diverse and agriculturally significant ridings in Ontario and is home to one of the largest tobacco farm economies in Canada. A number of farmers are also diversifying into ginseng, soybeans and other crops that grow well in the area. The export opportunities for these crops, as well as tobacco, has the potential for great expansion. You mentioned the Pacific Rim, exports to Japan. There are some excellent opportunities there for a wide variety of agrifood products. How is Ontario doing with respect to these kinds of exports?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: As we speak, we have a delegation with the Ontario tobacco board in the Pacific Rim looking and ferreting out new markets and I'm quite sure they will be successful. When I visited the Pacific Rim with the federal minister and a number of my provincial colleagues last April, we were told that Ontario produces the best quality that we export, indeed they recognize our quality as being outstanding.

We have with us today, just as a matter of fact, John Andrews and Kim Cooper from the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board and we also have Mr Fujimori, president of the Takeya Miso Co of Japan. Welcome, sir. As you well know, you have been here on many occasions. Ontario has top-quality beans. We all know that the soybeans that we produce will bring --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): Would you give us an answer, Minister?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Amazing, amazing. I hope you're not belittling our agricultural producers because soybeans are a very important crop in the province of Ontario and we export some of the best-quality soybeans that indeed are imported into Japan and elsewhere. We do have the ability to produce this top quality --

The Speaker: Wrap it up, please.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: -- and we will continue to do so and export to the world.

AMATEUR SPORT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. On the weekend an

article appeared in a major metropolitan newspaper under the headline "Amateur Sports on `Welfare': Tory MPP." It reads as follows:

"Amateur sports groups in Ontario are welfare recipients who have to be taken off the dole, says Conservative MPP Tony Clement.

"`It's like a welfare dependency, a business welfare dependency,' Clement told the Star."

Minister, do you agree with Mr Clement's characterization of amateur sports groups in Ontario as welfare recipients?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): What I said on the weekend was that there is a sports system in Ontario that does not have a strategy, and as far as I'm concerned a sports system that doesn't have a strategy is no system at all.

Mr Bradley: I was making reference to Mr Clement's remarks. It says here: "`I don't know what planet Mr Clement is on,' said Phyllis Berck, chair of Sport Ontario, a volunteer advocacy group. `It's like they have this ideology and they're going to make the shoe fit no matter what the size.'"

Another interesting comment you would enjoy says, "Long-time Conservative MPP Morley Kells, a former lacrosse and hockey stand-out, ripped his fellow caucus member for the welfare analogy.

"`That shows Tony's lack of feeling. He's just a hatchet man for the Harris government,' added Kells, who doesn't have much faith in Mushinski's qualifications for the job, either. `Mushinski's really only there to disassemble the...thing,'" and there is a little blank in front of "thing."

Minister, why don't you cease your attack on amateur sports groups in Ontario and begin to support those who are trying to provide a healthy, constructive athletic activity for youngsters and others in this province?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I welcome the question from the member opposite. I think it's perhaps time for me, as minister responsible for sport and recreation in the province, to tell him what we have been doing.

First of all, we are absolutely committed to supporting sport at the provincial and community levels. Perhaps I should let the members opposite know what we have been doing over the last nine months. We have set up a task force that includes stakeholders --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The minister has a rather soft-spoken voice, and the noise I'm hearing from this side is a little louder. I wonder if we could listen to the answer, please.

Hon Ms Mushinski: Over the last nine months we have been looking, as I said earlier, at what the provincial interest in sports should be. Clearly for the last 10, 15 years there has been no strategic system for sport in Ontario, so we have been meeting over the last nine months to develop an approach that we think is appropriate for the taxpayers in this province. On Friday I think the members opposite will see that we have clearly set a strategic direction for the future of sport in this province.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I would like to return to the Minister of Correctional Services. You've told us you haven't yet found out the results of the investigation into the concern I raised on Thursday and that you haven't yet found out whether or not there was a policy violation and what appropriate action was taken.

Let me tell you about the investigation that's taking place and about the action that has been taken by the management at Vanier.

On the Friday evening night shift two management employees approached the correctional officer who was assigned to duty in the special-needs unit and asked a couple of questions, one of them being, "Have you spoken to anybody outside of ministry personnel with respect to young offenders and adult offenders being housed together in this special-needs segregation unit?" Interesting, the tenor and the tone of this investigation: "Let's get to the bottom of this awful occurrence. Let's find out who told."

Since then -- let me continue with that night -- she asked for those questions in writing and was refused that. She refused to provide an answer in writing without union representation and was escorted off the property and suspended from duty.

Since that time, management has issued a letter to all the other employees who've worked in that unit demanding an answer to that question: Who did they tell? Let me make it very clear that this officer who is suspended is not the source of the information that I got.

Minister, will you take steps to ensure that all action against her is rescinded and that the request to all other employees with respect to this is withdrawn? Is this what you call appropriate action to be taken in response to the issue that I raised here in the Legislature?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This is essentially a personnel matter, and there are avenues available within the system, through the employee's union and other opportunities, to address these concerns.

Ms Lankin: This is amazing. You come here four days after I raise a very serious issue, say you haven't got the investigation results, you don't know the answer, you don't know if your policy was violated. Staff people are being intimidated and harassed, suspended, escorted off the premises because they are suspected of having told someone outside of the correctional ministry something with respect to this. They've got the wrong person whom they've suspended. And you're standing here and saying it's a personnel matter.

The evidence is very clear. After the James Lonnee tragic event, a youth housed in an adult segregation unit -- not in the same cell as an adult, as you said earlier; in an adult segregation unit -- you said that wouldn't happen again. You said your August directives would take care of that. Your policy, and I've read it out to you, is very clear.

Now, this youth was in that segregation unit and was able to communicate with the adult on either side of her. Let me also tell you that in Vanier, as we speak, this practice has not been changed as a result of your directives. Young offenders are at every meal time escorted over to the adult dining room, where they are served by adult inmates and adult inmates clean the tables up around them. They are in direct contact. How can you say that's not a violation of your policies and your directives? When are you going to get control of your ministry?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated earlier that we have these units in Ontario which have been in operation for some time where we have young offenders in adult institutions. In terms of segregation, indeed they are in segregation units but they are not in a cell with an adult; they are separated. That is a situation that is unchanged from the time this member was in government, and the Liberal government before that.

We are making changes to the corrections system that the previous government was unwilling to do, perhaps because of its friendships or relationships with senior union officials. I'm not sure what the reason was, but we are making very dramatic changes. We're doing what's right for the corrections system, and ultimately, at the end of the day, we hopefully will not have situations where indeed young offenders are even in the same areas or in the same institutions with adults. That's certainly our ultimate goal. It cannot be achieved overnight. It's a situation we inherited, but we are doing something about it.

I can give you another example of the Justice Hansen report. This member tries to indicate that all of a sudden they are the most concerned about dealing with young offenders. Justice Inger Hansen, in her report to the government, talked about training and urged the government to look into changing the ways they go about training correctional officers. That government did absolutely nothing about it. We have initiated a new process for correctional officers in terms of training where indeed they will get specific training in terms of how to deal with young offenders.

RENT REVIEW

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, in August and September the standing committee on general government traversed the province and had hearings on the rent reform discussion package from your ministry. The members of the opposition and several tenants' groups fearmongered and tried to scare tenants into believing that rents would skyrocket as a result of that package.

I know your ministry has done some research into the impact that the proposed reforms might have on the rental market and tenants. I wonder if you could inform the House about that research.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I can tell the member that we did conduct an independent study. We had an independent consultant by the name of John Todd. The consultant's report is now final; it's been made public; it's been provided to the opposition. That research showed that rent controls in Ontario have depressed the supply of rental housing. Not only that, but the research also found that if rent controls were removed completely, average rents would largely be the same as they are today and the availability of low-rent units for low-income tenants would remain unchanged.

Not only that, but the consultant also suggested that a system of partial decontrol, a system that we are proposing, would have a substantially smooth transition.

Mr Maves: Thank you, Minister. That answer and those results corroborate a lot of the evidence that we heard on the road.

I wonder if you have heard of any studies that members opposite would have put forward that showed that their doom-and-gloom scenarios would take place.

Hon Mr Leach: No, I'm not aware of any research that's been done by the opposition or any other parties that would substantiate the opposition's claims of skyrocketing rents, absolutely no evidence to prove that whatsoever. The research we have undertaken confirms that the current rent control regime has created a problem in the rental market where substantial reform is needed to improve conditions for both the landlords and the tenants. I believe this government has brought forward proposals that are fair and equitable and provide a balance.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I notice the Minister of Labour is out of the room at the present time and I have a question for her.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The minister is present.

Mr Lalonde: My question to the minister, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, concerns this government's failure over the past three months to negotiate an acceptable agreement with the Quebec government on construction labour mobility. After holding public hearings on this issue in six cities in eastern and northern Ontario, I can tell you, Madam Minister, that the word on everybody's lips is "now." Enough is enough. People in the Ontario construction industry are fed up. They have lost enough money, enough jobs, while their Quebec counterparts have prospered. They want action from this government now: not tomorrow, not in six months, not next year. They want it now.

In view of your refusal of the last Quebec proposal that was presented to you last week, I ask you, Minister, what are you prepared to do now to give hope to thousands of Ontario construction workers and contractors?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): As you know, during the last two weeks we have endeavoured to arrange numerous meetings with our counterparts in Quebec. We are determined to resolve the situation. We are determined to secure access for our workers and for our contractors into the province of Quebec, just as they have free access into our province.

Yes, I did receive a response from the Quebec Minister of Labour last week. We are looking at those proposals, and within the next few days we will be looking at responding and indicating what measures we are prepared to take.

The Speaker: The time for oral question period has expired.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Mr Speaker, at this time I'd like to raise a point of privilege under

section 21 of the standing orders. My point involves the process by which MPPs in the Sudbury district were notified this morning of the report from the Health Services Restructuring Commission. I do not want to deal with the contents of the report itself; I want to deal with the process and how we were advised about this.

The essence of the point of privilege is this: Last week the Health Services Restructuring Commission sent the MPPs an agenda with respect to how it wanted to proceed this morning. We advised the restructuring commission that we did not find the agenda acceptable because it did not allow for the local MPPs to be briefed this morning and then to get a plane to come to Toronto to participate in question period. My colleague the member for Nickel Belt made a similar point to the Minister of Health himself on Thursday and requested that the

schedule be changed so that we could participate fully in the briefing process, both seeing all the slides of all the work that has been done and having the opportunity to ask questions.

This morning, having received a response from neither the commission nor the Minister of Health --

The Speaker: I cannot account for any members. I cannot force members to meet with anybody or anybody to meet with members, so it is not a point of privilege. That's my ruling.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's the ruling. I've ruled that it is not a point of privilege.

Ms Martel: Mr Speaker, you have to listen.

The Speaker: Is this a new point of privilege?

Ms Martel: No, Mr Speaker, it's the same point of privilege.

The Speaker: No. I've made my ruling.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You haven't heard what she said.

The Speaker: Yes, I did hear. I heard enough. There is no point of privilege.

Mr Lalonde: My supplementary, Mr Speaker. It is clear from the minister's --

The Speaker: No, the time for question period is over and I said so. The clock ran out. We had 60 minutes; the 60 minutes has run out.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order

section 34(a), I wish to advise of my dissatisfaction with the response the Minister of Health gave with regard to Sudbury health services restructuring and I request a late show. They're held Tuesdays and Thursdays; I would request a late show for Tuesday.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): Your request will be met.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Quoting the same point of privilege, I sent a letter to Dr Duncan Sinclair on August 7 -- Dr Sinclair is the chair of the Health Services Restructuring Commission -- advising him of my wanting to facilitate a meeting with the three MPPs, regional politicians and the commission after the hospitals were briefed but before the media were briefed.

He responded on August 20, stating that he appreciated my letter and, "We will be contacting you to discuss your suggestion prior to finalizing the process for the release of the commission's report." That never happened, and that's a part of the point of privilege the member for Sudbury East is trying to make. They did not follow a process they had committed to and I believe our rights as MPPs were violated.

The Speaker: Again, it's the same point of privilege and my response is the same.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The point we're trying to raise has to do with access of members to information that very dramatically affects people who live in their ridings. The point of the matter is that this morning the member for Nickel Belt and I were specifically excluded from attending a media lockup with respect to the hospital commission's report and review. We went at 9:30 to be briefed. We were not allowed into the room and I find that to be unacceptable. As a consequence of that, we had to wait and at the time we were supposed to be briefed we had to leave and --

The Speaker: I'm sorry, you're belabouring an issue that I've already ruled on. This is not a point of privilege. I have ruled it is not a point of privilege.

Interjections.

The Speaker: This is not a point of privilege, please.

PETITIONS

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): If you'll bear with me, I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, a petition to end the spring bear hunt in the north.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition as well.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I wish to present to the Legislative Assembly a petition from thousands of Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council members who have grave concerns about this government's intent to dismantle WCB as we know it.

"To Premier Harris:

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system including:

"Reducing benefits, excluding claims for back injuries, carpal tunnel, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress and most occupational disease;

"Eliminating pension supplements;

"Handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury;

"Privatizing WCB to large insurance companies;

"Eliminating worker representation;

"Eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, known as WCAT;

"Deducting Canada pension plan disability benefits and union pensions dollar for dollar from WCB benefits;

"We demand compensation if we are injured, a safe workplace, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, WCAT be left intact, and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

As I agree with these petitioners, I add my name to theirs.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I am pleased to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, the first of many petitions I have received on the issue of ammunition regulation in Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

CHILD ABUSE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I present a petition to the Legislature of the province of Ontario, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, the Minister of Education and Training, John Snobelen, and all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to inquire by independent public commission of inquiry into the treatment of reports or complaints of abuse of students by Kenneth Gino Deluca, a former teacher and now convicted child abuser, and the handling of such reports or complaints by the Sault Ste Marie and district Roman Catholic separate school board between the years 1972 and 1993.

"Whereas the protection of children, the promotion of the best interests of children and the wellbeing of children are a paramount objective to society as a whole; and

"Whereas the information which has been made public during the course of the trial of former teacher Kenneth Gino Deluca, convicted abuser of school children, has raised grave public concerns regarding the manner in which the school board, its officials and others involved in education and other public agencies responsible for the protection of children received and reacted to reports and complaints of abuse; and

"Whereas every person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children and has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child has suffered or may have suffered abuse has a legal obligation to report this suspicion to the children's aid society or appropriate authorities, who are required to investigate and take appropriate action;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Education and Training and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to launch an inquiry into the manner in which reports or complaints of abuse of school children were received, recorded and addressed by the school board and all other authorities responsible for the protection of children and the promotion of the wellbeing of children in society, specifically by appointing a commission of inquiry pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act of Ontario."

This is signed by over 10,000 people, citizens of Sault Ste Marie, my constituents, and I sign my name to this petition and join them in calling for this inquiry.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition mainly from the village of Grand Valley in my riding of Dufferin-Peel. There's a total of 864 signatures. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Ontario government to review traffic safety conditions at the intersection of Highway 25 north and Highway 9, namely, the installation of a flashing warning light with a speed limit of 60 or 70 kilometres, or a regular three-way traffic light. Also obstructing the view to the east are signs and vehicles parked in a service station property. This intersection is one kilometre south of Grand Valley."

I have signed my signature to this petition.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the current rate of unemployment in the construction industry in Ottawa-Carleton region is at a record level of 48%;

"Whereas Ontario-based construction workers and contractors encounter a great many regulations that effectively prohibit them from working in Quebec while construction workers and contractors based in Quebec encounter no such restrictions in Ontario;

"Whereas negotiations over the last number of years between various governments from Ontario and Quebec that were dedicated to eliminating barriers to labour mobility have failed to level the playing field for Ontario and Quebec workers;

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

"That the proposed Construction Workforce from Quebec Act tabled by Jean-Marc Lalonde, member for Prescott and Russell, on June 4 of this year to protect Ontario workers and contractors in the construction industry be adopted."

I have signed this petition.

RENT REGULATION / RÉGLEMENTATION DES LOYERS

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : J'ai une pétition faisant affaire avec le contrôle des loyers, signée par environ 400 personnes de London, Sudbury, Niagara Falls, Windsor et Ottawa. La pétition lit telle que :

"A petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Save rent control.

"To Premier Mike Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach and members of the provincial Legislature:

"Whereas to abolish rent control in favour of a market system would be disastrous for tenants and give further power and allow unnecessary profit for landlords,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to support universal and mandatory rent controls which reflect a fair balance between the ability of tenants to pay and the necessary costs of supplying well-maintained and secure housing."

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition forwarded to the member for Simcoe East and I'm presenting it today on his behalf. This petition concerns the request for an advance flashing light for left-hand turns on a street in Orillia. It's signed by approximately 180 constituents in the riding of Simcoe East, and I'm filing it today.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario promised not to cut one penny from health care; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has proceeded to cut over $1 billion of much-needed dollars from the community hospitals; and

"Whereas the people of St Catharines have come to rely upon the caring professional service provided by health caregivers at the General Hospital, the Shaver Hospital and the Hotel Dieu Hospital and who view this betrayal by the Mike Harris government as an attack on quality health care services in the Niagara region; and

"Whereas the residents of St Catharines do not accept the notion that any of its hospitals should be closed, because they are essential in order to maintain a caring and humane society;

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

"That the Ontario government keep their election promise and restore health care spending to the level at which they promised during the last election campaign so that all three St Catharines hospitals are able to continue to provide their much-needed and valuable services."

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

BEAR HUNTING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 252 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition signed by a number of Ontario residents which is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario, and I'm going to read it as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

I agree with the contents of this petition and with the signatories, and I will lend my name to it.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 93 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking and the ban on paramilitary weapons; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic of illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy other than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

I support this petition and have so signed it.

USER FEES

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): "Whereas the government of Mike Harris has broken its pre-election promise not to impose user fees on health care;

"Whereas the user fee imposed by the Harris government on prescription drugs is causing low-income seniors grave hardship;

"Whereas the vast majority of seniors have worked very hard and have paid taxes for decades;

"Whereas seniors are most concerned that this will be the beginning of more and more user fees on health care;

"We, the undersigned, totally oppose the Mike Harris prescription user fee for seniors and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Mike Harris government place a moratorium on all health care user fees for seniors."

I affix my name to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

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

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I am delighted to have the opportunity today to speak in support of Bill 57. Before I do, however, I'd just like to say how good it is to be back in the House. This past summer was an opportunity for me, as I'm sure it was for many other members, to spend a considerable amount of my time in my riding high atop Hamilton Mountain, speaking with constituents in my office at Canada Day festivities and other events, to get their feedback on how they feel this government has been doing.

The overwhelming message I received from people is that whatever questions they may have about some of the issues this government is dealing with, they firmly believe we are on the right track. They are also very pleased that, unlike the two previous Liberal and NDP governments, we are doing exactly what we said we would do.

One of the things we said we would do is reduce red tape and help remove barriers to economic growth and investment. The problem of red tape was highlighted just last week in a report by the Fraser Institute, which looked at the extraordinarily high cost of regulation. This report estimated that regulatory compliance at all levels of government cost Canadians $85.7 billion -- that's $85.7 billion -- in 1993-94. Surely no one would say we don't need regulation. Of course we need regulation to protect our health and safety and our environment.

But $85.7 billion is clearly a case of over-regulation and clearly a case of overkill. It is an astronomical cost that acts as a huge disincentive to investment, job creation and economic growth. We need economic investment in this province, we need further job creation in this province and we need economic growth in this province.

Another thing we said we would do is make government more administratively efficient and use taxpayers' money more wisely. Bill 57, which reforms the environmental approvals process among other things, is a very important initiative because it is in keeping with these promises. It is in line with this government's efforts to reduce the regulatory burden and to help remove barriers to economic growth and investment, and it makes wise use of government resources so that they are spent on real environmental problems. However, just as importantly, Bill 57 will accomplish these goals without -- and I emphasize "without" -- reducing environmental protection or lowering environmental standards.

The opposition will spend all their time this afternoon, as they did last Thursday afternoon, telling us how this bill will hurt the environment or how this is another example of how this government is gutting the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth of the matter. There is nothing in Bill 57 which affects environmental standards or which affects the Ministry of Environment's fundamental role in setting these standards and in seeing that these standards are met. Our environmental standards are tough and they will remain tough. We will as a government continue to enforce these tough standards.

But what's this bill really about? This bill is about reforming the current inefficient and costly approvals process that creates unnecessary red tape for business, industry and municipalities.

Let's be very clear about what Bill 57 is changing here. It is introducing an approved and more straightforward approvals process for certain activities with a predictable environmental impact. The minister used the example of restaurants and kitchen exhausts last week, and I believe that was a good example because it illustrates exactly what this Bill 57 is trying to remedy.

If you think about the number of restaurants that set up shop in this province and the well-known environmental impact of kitchen exhaust, it seems to me that it doesn't make much sense for this government to go to each and every fish and chips shop at every corner and hold their hands while they set up their kitchen vents. Surely this government has many more important environmental concerns to deal with than this. Surely our resources should be focused where the environmental need is the greatest. Surely we have more important environmental battles to fight.

For those persons concerned with the question of what activities will be included in the new standardized approvals process, the minister has made it clear that there will be full consultation before this is done. The ministry will listen to all stakeholders before defining the environmental activities which are to be included in the new standardized approvals process.

I don't really see what is wrong with the objectives of this bill. What's wrong with making regulations more efficient and less costly? Surely we want regulations that are clear, precise, effective, administratively efficient and not costly to administer. Surely no one can disagree with that objective.

Bill 57 will also save taxpayers' money by winding down the Environmental Compensation Corp. While costing taxpayers almost $3 million to run over the past decade, the ECC has only paid out about $690,000. Once again, this does not appear to me to be a very wise use of taxpayers' dollars, but that's not surprising. The previous Liberal and NDP governments were not exactly in the habit of using taxpayers' money wisely. Again I wonder, and I've wondered before, if they're as liberal with their own money as they are with the taxpayers' money.

I know there has been significant concern over how compensation will be paid out. Under the current law, companies are liable for any spills they are involved in. Bill 57 does not change that. Companies are still liable for any spills, and compensation will be available through the courts system.

Bill 57 also introduces user fees, as the minister described last week in the House. This also was a long time coming.

It doesn't make sense for this government to spend $1 million a year subsidizing the waste and generator industries. They don't need it and Ontario taxpayers don't need it.

I believe the minister said two things in his speech to the House last week which bear repeating. The minister said that we must focus on results instead of process. Process is important, but only when it is connected to results. We can have the most elaborate processes for environmental protection while at the same time achieving less than adequate results. Our goal should be to have processes for environmental protection that directly tie into results. That only makes sense.

The minister also mentioned the word "balance." I think that some people, perhaps a few of the members across the way, think "balance" is a bad word. As a member of this House, I believe that balance is a positive word and that legislation passed in this House should be characterized by balance. I also believe that Bill 57 is a balanced bill that will get rid of those unnecessary regulatory processes that have little to do with serious environmental protection and everything to do with inefficiency and costliness.

In closing, I believe we can achieve a balance between effective environmental protection and a growing, healthy economy. I believe that Bill 57 is a step in achieving this balance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): In response to the member for Hamilton Mountain, I can appreciate his comments. However, I would like to point out a couple of very important areas where this particular bill, the way it is, will not accomplish what it's proposed to do, and that is to create a balance, or a fair balance.

It does not create a fair balance when you are going to chop down the resources. You're chopping down the people who are supposed to be doing the work that the ministry is supposed to be doing. You're passing this along to the local municipalities, and of course, local municipalities don't have those resources. So really, how are they going to do that? With all due respect to the member who says job creation, this is taking jobs away. It is not creating more jobs. How are you going to create more jobs?

Even though you're saving $5.7 million, there is no excuse to save $5.7 million at the expense of the environment. Once you dispose of those things that have been put in place to safeguard and protect the environment, the $5.7 million, with all due respect, is really a drop in the bucket.

When we're speaking of process and result according to the process, we are not saying that things shouldn't be improving and cut some of the red tape, but not at the expense of the environment. So I can appreciate what the member is saying. I hope that this, as he said, will go for public consultation, for public input, and then come back. I do hope that the Premier, the minister, the members on the government side will seriously take into consideration the views of the people out there, who I'm sure, when given the opportunity, will be speaking truly against the majority of this proposed bill.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): To the member opposite and his speech on this particular bill, Bill 57, it amazes me somewhat to watch government members enter this House with their prewritten speeches on the part of the spin masters of the Premier's office and the cabinet office, because time after time when legislation comes in, I've rarely seen an occasion where members of this House have stood in this House from the government benches and actually spoke on a bill from the perspective of their constituents, the people they're here to represent.

What I heard -- except for Mr Arnott, I do stand corrected, and Morley Kells is another, but en masse, most of those backbenchers are trying to run as quickly as they can to the front benches or to be pulled into the cabinet and they figure the rule to do that is to read the spin that you're being given by these people. That's not what you're here for. I don't mean to preach, but you are here to represent your constituents.

I know for a fact that the member opposite who just gave this speech has had constituents come to him, because they've also talked to me, about their concerns about what this particular bill has to do. In sake of that argument, you talked about the environmental --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: I have my own member heckling me here. The member talks about the Environmental Compensation Corp as being dissolved and you talk about how they only paid out some $600 million but they spent $3 million over the period of time that that corporation was in place. You fail to recognize the people who were affected and the people quite frankly who could have never got their day in court if it had not been for that particular fund.

The member comes in here, gives a speech written by the cabinet office and doesn't take into account what this means to his constituents. What it means clearly is this: If one of your constituents ends up in a situation where there is a gas spill and your constituent has to go to court, if he or she doesn't have the bucks, there's not a prayer that they're going to be able to get their fair day in court because that particular fund will not give them the money that they need to be able to hire lawyers. Most people don't have the opportunity to do that.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): First, I'd like to compliment the member for Hamilton Mountain on just an excellent speech, an excellent presentation on this bill. I'm frankly disappointed in the member for Cochrane South making reference to using a properly prepared speech. I'd compliment him on staying on topic. This is something that the opposition's had a lot of difficulty with in their presentations. We heard a 90-minute speech yesterday from the NDP critic and it was only about five minutes on Bill 57. The rest of the 85 minutes was on anything and everything except having to do with Bill 57.

That's quite disappointing. I have stood in this place asking them to come back to the topic and certainly I compliment you for doing the same -- bringing them back on topic to things such as Bill 57.

The other thing I was disappointed in hearing last Thursday was they were making reference to the 800 number, which I commented in my presentation. I'm rather surprised that members of the NDP wouldn't have understood that 1-800-667-9979 happened to be the number that they brought in with their Environmental Bill of Rights registry. They didn't even recognize the number and they were making fun of it, the number that they brought in.

I just might comment. There are many ways of getting into the Environmental Bill of Rights. You can go in by modem, by Internet or the World Wide Web and get information about what's going on, what we're putting in there on bills such as Bill 57 and also on the regulatory reform that we're actively involved with.

I have instructions for accessing the environmental registry. If you'd care, I can send it over to you, if you're interested, other than just making fun of the 800 number. It would be quite beneficial if you really wanted to look in and find out about Bill 57 so you can be on topic in the future.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Hamilton Mountain, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Pettit: I appreciate the chance to respond. I think that the member for Northumberland said everything there was that needed to be said to the member for Cochrane South. I was hoping that the member for Hamilton Centre and the member for Riverdale would be here today because I wanted to assure them that despite everything they'd say, I want them to know that I for one have listened intently to each of their speeches on Bill 57 and I want them to know that I deeply respect their thoughts on this bill and the other bills that they've spoken to, because I know that both of them are deeply committed to their cause and that they speak from their heart.

Unfortunately, sometimes speech from the heart is overwhelmed by empty rhetoric and unsubstantiated bafflegab and I believe that this is the case here. There is nothing in Bill 57 that will reduce environmental protection or lower environmental standards, despite the fearmongering and the non-fact-based arguments of the opposition.

Not only have I listened to their speeches here in the House, but I was also present to hear the member for Riverdale speak on many occasions during the summer during our committee travel throughout the province. Then, as now, the main thrust of their arguments is that there's nothing wrong with the status quo, everything's okay, no changes needed. Everything they did while they were in government was perfect; there's no need to revamp anything.

Isn't that convenient? What's missing here are any viable alternatives or any form of reasonable constructive criticism. Instead, all we hear is constant fearmongering and slamming everything the government has done or is doing.

I say to the members opposite, the status quo is not acceptable to me. It's not acceptable to the majority of Ontarians who gave us a mandate to make change, to become more cost-efficient and to reduce the role government plays in all of our lives. So it seems that this message still hasn't sunk in across the floor as yet and I hope it will soon. Be a part of the solution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Sergio: I rise to participate in the discussion on Bill 57 and I want to take a few minutes. I won't be too, too long, because I will be repeating some of the concerns that have been expressed from members on this side of the House, and that is serious concern with the content of the bill.

Let me say first that in many, many ways Bill 57 is very similar to the intent, if not the content, of Bill 52. While Bill 57 portrays to improve the efficiency of the environmental approvals process and other matters, Bill 52 is also

an act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining process.

We have just heard from one of the last speakers in there to have the opposition come up with something serious, concrete and not perhaps to badger the government side. As the speaker was himself saying, that they are doing exactly what they told the people of Ontario they would be doing, I have to say to them, look at your own documentation and then you tell this Ho