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

June 11, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L203 - Wed 11 Jun 1997 / Mer 11 Jun 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JOE MCCAFFERY

DAVID REEDY

FRED FLETCHER

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

PHYSICIANS' FEES

LOYALIST COLLEGE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' FEES

WATER QUALITY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ADULT EDUCATION

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

ADULT EDUCATION

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

COMMUNITY SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

TVONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINICS

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CHILD CARE

ROUTE 17

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL FINANCING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1997

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE WATERLOO

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JOE MCCAFFERY

James Mr J. Bradley (St Catharines): One of St Catharines's most beloved citizens passed away today after a courageous battle with cancer. Mayor Joe McCaffery, as he is still affectionately known, served the people of St Catharines with dedication, commitment and enthusiasm on city council from 1980 to 1994, when he retired undefeated after three terms as mayor.

No problem was too small, no individual too insignificant to merit the attention of Mayor Joe. If ever the label of "grass-roots politician" suited a person, it fit perfectly for Joe McCaffery. There was nothing phoney about Joe; what you saw was what you got, and it was 100% genuine.

Joe was born in Western Hill and proud of it. He never forgot his friends and supporters when he reached the top of the municipal ladder. He went out of his way to make the humble feel important and had no aspirations to run with the powerful and influential crowd.

No one, but no one, was a bigger booster of St Catharines than Joe McCaffery. His famous references to St Catharines as the capital of everything from rowing to recycling drew roars of approval from any audience, and his friendly, down-to-earth approach melted even the hardest heart and broke the ice in even the most formal setting.

Joe was an Irishman through and through, from his trademark green tie to the green that adorned anything he wore, including the mayor's chain of office.

Joe McCaffery was a great athlete, a fine civic leader, a loyal husband and father, and a remarkable character.

I have lost a good friend. All of St Catharines has lost a good friend. We will miss you, Joe, but we won't forget you.

DAVID REEDY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Last week I rose in this House to honour a citizen in my community who gave of herself in ways that called for recognition in a very special benefit dinner that was held this week, in the person of Doris Silk.

Today I rise to pay homage to another member of our community who has been recognized in his own right, by the organization Community Living Algoma in particular. David Reedy, a member of the board of directors of Community Living Algoma, was honoured with the James Montgomerie Honour Award in recognition of his active work on behalf of those with developmental or intellectual disabilities in my community. It's the first time somebody from Sault Ste Marie has been honoured in this way.

"Reedy," it says here, "a strong voice for the disabled in our community, first joined Community Living Algoma in 1993, and has served on the board of directors since 1994. In addition to his work with Community Living Algoma, David is a member of the Sault Ste Marie

chapter of People First, as well as participating in the Rotary Club and Easter Seal Society fund-raisers. Provincially, he is involved with the People First organization."

My personal experience with David is one of a person keenly interested in the public life of Sault Ste Marie and of this province. David is one to phone me at all times of the day and night when something catches his fancy or he sees something on television, to let me know how he feels and to ask my opinion. Today we say thanks to David.

FRED FLETCHER

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I have the honour today of paying tribute to a man from my riding who made a difference in the lives of others in his community and across the province. Fred Fletcher, who died recently, lived in our area for most of his 84 years. He was very involved in enhancing both the profession in which he worked and the community in which he lived.

Born in Tilbury East township in 1913, Mr Fletcher and his family moved to Chatham in the early 1920s. When the Second World War began, Mr Fletcher enlisted in the navy and served on corvettes. Upon leaving the navy, he joined the Kent and Essex Mutual Fire Insurance Co and eventually became manager of the Chatham branch, retiring in 1978.

Mr Fletcher was very prominent in the insurance industry. He was the founding chairman of the farm mutual reinsurance plan, the first Canadian reinsurance company owned by farm mutuals across Ontario. He was also a founding trustee of the farm mutual guarantee fund, a mechanism through which every farm mutual in Ontario will come to the aid of the policyholders of another company. These two plans are considered the cornerstones of the farm mutual industry. His insight, which led to their establishment, has long been recognized by his peers.

Mr Fletcher was a member of the First Presbyterian Church, serving as treasurer on the board of trustees for years, and he volunteered his time for various church events and faithfully attended services.

I am sure all members join me in offering condolences to his wife, Dora, and his daughter, Joan, his family and his many friends.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We have a pretty famous corner in my riding. It has been dubbed Killer Corner. The interesting thing about this corner is that we have written and spoken to the minister himself about this intersection for two years now.

Last year we put up flashing lights on one side at Huron Line and Cousineau Road, warning of the impending red light. It's a significant truck route. It leads to the Ambassador Bridge at one end and the 401 at the other. Families have lost people because of this corner. That's why it's called Killer Corner.

We're asking the ministry now to give us a flashing warning light on the other side of the road, given that traffic goes both ways. We don't think it's a huge request. We understand that there are significant, pressing issues facing government today in Ontario. We are looking at a cost of $20,000, including installation, for flashing warning lights of an impending red light at this corner that impacts families.

There are families who have lost loved ones over the years, and there are school buses that cross with young children, because on either side there are residential areas. We don't think it's a huge request, understanding that there are other pressing areas of government, but we do expect to have a good response from the ministry.

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to join with the members for Fort York and Mississauga East who spoke of the importance of recognizing Portugal Day, which is June 10.

Of the 500,000 Portuguese people in Canada, 72% are here in Ontario, and of that, 20,000 are in my community of Hamilton. The Portuguese people have provided incredible input into our community and have been an important part of our culture. In Hamilton we have one of the most diverse communities in all of Canada, and certainly the Portuguese people have played a key leadership role.

The Luso-Canadian Council of Hamilton sponsors Lusofest every year, which is our opportunity to celebrate, through banquets, public displays, dance and song, all of the heritage that the Portuguese people have brought to our community.

In addition, the council sponsors the Lusofest university and college scholarships, where every year they award these scholarships to three of their high school students to promote their education, but also to remind them that it's important to bring their heritage to the fore in our community.

I think the Portuguese people in particular are doing an excellent job in our community of instilling that sense of pride and heritage in the young people so they never forget and always remember: "Be proud to be from Portugal. Be proud to live in Canada." Viva la Portugal.

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Tomorrow, June 12, marks the 99th anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of the Philippines from Spain.

It was General Emilio Aguinaldo who led the uprising against Spanish colonial rule over the Philippines in the late 19th century that resulted in victory and freedom for his people. Aguinaldo declared June 12 as Philippines Independence Day, but later the American date of July 4 was substituted.

On May 12, 1962, then Philippines President Diosdado Macapagal declared June 12 as the official independence day from then on: "A nation is born into freedom on the day when such a people, moulded into a nation by a process of cultural evolution and a sense of oneness born of common struggle and suffering, announces to the world that it asserts its natural right to liberty and is ready to defend it with blood, life and honour."

Over the weekend I attended a celebration held at the Scarborough Civic Centre by the Federation of Filipino Canadians. I met with federation president Monina Lim-Serrano and many other prominent members of Toronto's Filipino community. This well-attended event exhibited a wide array of Filipino song, dance and culture. I look forward to attending their independence day celebration next year and am honoured to have the opportunity to recognize this important event before the Legislature.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I would like to extend my sincerest best wishes and congratulations to all Ontarians of Filipino ancestry on this important date. Mabuhay ang Filipinas.

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today to once again speak about the plight of the flood victims of Essex county. Property damage is now in the millions. Breakwalls are failing and are in a state of disrepair. The situation is critical. We are one major storm away from even more damage.

All of this could be rectified today if the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would reinstate funding to the Shoreline Property Assistance Act. The minister has told me on several occasions that his officials are meeting and exploring their options. To me this is simply political language for the fact that the minister really doesn't care about the people in Essex and Kent counties. Well, Minister, I do, and I won't stop badgering you about this issue until you do something to provide assistance to the people who have serious breakwall and flood damage.

We're not talking about a handout. It's not a grant, it's a loan, a loan the government will even make some money on. We don't need special legislation. The act is already on the books. With the stroke of a pen, the minister could reinstate funding to the loan program and get the repairs and preventive measures under way.

There is no longer an excuse for inaction by this minister. It's time to clean up the mess on the shorelines of Essex and Kent counties.

PHYSICIANS' FEES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The illegal billing of patients for services covered by OHIP seems to have increased across the province, at least by some doctors. Our office has received several reports of doctors charging user fees, block payments, for services which are already being paid for by OHIP.

One example: I refer to a letter that was sent to a patient which says, "If it is decided that surgery is required to address your complaint, you will be required to pay a surgical administrative fee of $50 for the procedure." This is purportedly so that the doctor can be paid in connection with the surgery, like arranging hospital beds, operation room time, arranging surgical assistance, consultations, blood work etc. I tell you, Speaker, and you know, that this is thoroughly illegal. We've reported the cases we've been made aware of to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. However, this phenomenon is so pandemic that placing the onus on patients to make a complaint is simply not enough.

Patients who are sick and elderly are afraid to complain in case their surgery is cancelled. Orthopaedic patients who have been waiting many months for surgery are afraid of further delays. There have to be clear and strict sanctions against such illegal billing of our most vulnerable, and penalties levied against physicians who persist in this heinous practice. I call upon the Ministry of Health to be proactive in this matter, not simply sit idle while patients are being gouged.

LOYALIST COLLEGE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate Loyalist College for continuing to maintain a high level of academic excellence. Not only has Loyalist College been recognized as one of the top facilities in the province, but a recent survey indicated the education received at Loyalist is resulting in meaningful employment opportunities for graduates.

Eighty-nine per cent of the 1996 graduating class recently surveyed found employment within the first six months of graduation. The average annual starting salary for a graduate was close to $23,000. This means that recent graduates are quickly able to become contributing members of society. Not only are Loyalist graduates finding employment, but in a recent survey of those who employ Loyalist graduates, 99% of the respondents indicated they would hire another Loyalist graduate.

These kinds of results speak volumes for the type of education Loyalist is providing for its students. Students are able to find meaningful employment. Graduates are earning excellent reputations for themselves within the community. As college president Doug Auld said, "These results demonstrate a high degree of accountability to both the employers, graduates and taxpayers of Ontario." I would like to congratulate President Doug Auld and the entire college on these impressive achievements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I rise today on behalf of the government to honour the first Annual Day of Commemoration for Victims of Crime.

This government continues to be whole-heartedly committed to correcting an imbalance that was developed in our justice system where the rights of the accused are put in the spotlight and the needs of victims stay in the shadows. We will not tolerate a system that allows victims of crime to suffer twice: first at the hands of the criminal, and second at the hands of a legal system that does not respect, understand or respond to their needs.

In this government's first year we took immediate steps to introduce a Victims' Bill of Rights which was proclaimed into law one year ago. This legislation, among the most comprehensive in Canada, brings about long-overdue changes to the way victims of crime are treated.

Among its various provisions, the bill of rights enshrines the victims' justice fund to ensure that money collected from fines imposed by the courts on offenders will be used strictly for services to victims. The government allocated more than $10.2 million from the fund to strengthen victims' services across Ontario over the first two years, and will continue to invest additional funds for victims' services in the future.

We have dedicated funds to double the number of services available to victims of crime as their cases proceed through the courts, and to enhance the services provided in existing sites. Victims in 26 communities will now have the support of the victim/witness assistance program. These programs help people through the court process so they won't be traumatized again. In 1996-97 more than 11,000 victims of crime received these services.

These programs focus on the most vulnerable. More than 80% of the people receiving this support are victims of wife assault, sexual assault or child abuse, while families of homicide victims and families of people killed by impaired drivers make up the remaining individuals who received these services.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services will also be expanding programs which provide immediate on-site services to victims of crime. The victim crisis assistance and referral service will expand to 20 locations with the addition of eight new sights across the province. This further guarantees that services will be available when needed to victims in their own communities.

The government also introduced an information line that will allow victims to get information on the release dates of an offender as well as general information on the criminal justice process at any time. Our government took the steps of establishing domestic violence court projects at Toronto's old city hall and in North York. Launched in cooperation with judges, police, crown attorneys and the victim/witness assistance program, these court projects are designed to do a better job of supporting victims and holding abusers accountable for their crimes.

We are looking for solutions to the problem of domestic violence by trying different approaches. In North York, the focus is on breaking the cycle of violence. In assault cases that do not involve serious injury or use of a weapon, first-time offenders undergo intensive batterers' counselling. The downtown Toronto court focuses on prosecution, employing improved investigation techniques such as the use of 911 tapes to obtain better evidence and improve the chances of obtaining a conviction. Both projects are supported by increased victims' services and are gaining recognition as creative responses to the crime of domestic assault. We are looking to further expand these innovative projects.

I would like to acknowledge the ongoing efforts of my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues. This minister has shown leadership in coordinating nine ministries in their plans to reduce violence against women. In the last budget, the Ontario women's directorate received an additional $27 million to deal specifically with violence prevention issues. I know she will have a number of announcements to make in this particular area in the next few weeks.

I take great pride in that Ontario's Victims' Bill of Rights is among the most comprehensive in Canada. However, victims' issues are truly national issues that demand national guidelines that would set standards across the country. I call on the federal government to provide leadership and develop a Canadian victims' bill of rights.

To address the concerns of victims, the federal government must also take action in other areas.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code should be repealed outright, because families of murder victims should never be forced to endure the pain of going through a parole application by a convicted killer.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Cam Jackson for his direction in the battle to improve the plight of victims. His work while in opposition has been a valuable foundation for our efforts as a government.

This government will not stop here. We will continue to expand victims' services, to seek policy solutions and to make the real changes necessary to ensure the rights of victims are protected in Ontario's justice system.

Today, Ontario's Annual Day of Commemoration for Victims of Crime, I ask all members of the House to join in reaffirming the commitment to rebalance the scales of justice through further action to meet the needs and respect the rights of victims of crime.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): It's with a great sense of sobriety that I rise to respond to the Attorney General's statement this morning. It's important for all us to acknowledge the suffering of victims of crime in our community, but more important, I think it's important for all of us to commit even more fully to pledging that they will not suffer further at the hands of a justice system which is often insensitive to their needs.

At the press conference this morning, the government released yet another 1-800 number for victims of crime. Let me tell the Attorney General that victims of crime do not need another 1-800 hotline to nowhere. What they need is for us to stop talking and to start doing.

Despite what the government may have said and what it wants us to believe, there's much to be concerned about. There is, for instance, the very large cut that has been made to the Ministry of the Attorney General, which has made the delivery of the system of justice in this province much more difficult. Nowhere is this truer than in the courts. We have fewer crown attorneys to deal with ever more complex cases. We have persistent case backlogs plaguing our courthouses across the province. The Attorney General pops up now and then to announce a new blitz, and yet they don't seem to have worked. What we need is leadership every day of the year to address the very serious problem of backlogs.

It should not take unprecedented interventions by the chief justices of this province before the Attorney General will notice that court backlogs are a major problem for victims. We've had examples of cases of theft, holdups, sexual assaults, all dismissed because it took too long to get them to prosecution. No assurances have been given by this government of how to solve this problem. Delays threaten more than 50% of criminal trials in Ontario with the same fate.

Is it any wonder that Chief Justice McMurtry, himself once an Attorney General and a member of a previous Conservative government, has said, "Lip-service is paid within the ranks of the government to the importance of the justice system"? A very damning comment indeed. I and all Ontarians hope that today is not more lip-service.

I remind the Attorney General that victims have a right to justice and that justice delayed is justice denied. Victims also want information, and information denied is justice denied. My private member's bill dedicated to victims' rights sought to ensure that victims would be kept informed by crown attorneys of every step of the proceedings in criminal cases.

In particular, I have spoken many times in this House about the need for clear guidelines for plea bargains so that prosecutors will not make the kind of deal with the devil that we saw in the Karla Homolka case. Some 300,000 people signed a petition agreeing with me, and yet nothing was done. Over and over again, the Attorney General has promised such guidelines would come. He must surely be embarrassed that despite such statements ever since March 1996, and we're talking now of well over a year, his government has done nothing.

In February of this year I raised another case, that of Karen Vanscoy, whose daughter was shot to death. Again, a plea-bargain deal was entered into without adequate consultation with the family, and an offender who should have been charged with second-degree murder got away with a light sentence of manslaughter. It's a sobering thought that the Attorney General and his ministry have learned nothing.

I say to the minister that his success or failure as Attorney General will depend substantially upon his ability to give victims of crime the humane face of our justice system instead of the bewildering maze and delays they now have to encounter. As we reflect upon victims of crime, let us hope that your efforts in the future will be better than your record in the past.

Let me conclude with the words of the Attorney General himself in this House in November 1995: "This government will not accept a system that allows victims of crime to suffer twice: first at the hands of the criminal and, second, under a justice system that does not respond to and respect victims' needs." I challenge the Attorney General and his government to give meaning to those words.

We respect this day, we respect that it has been set aside for victims, but we urge the government once again to stop talking and start acting.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, let me make it clear that we will continue to support in the future, as we have in the past, any and all efforts to improve justice for victims.

However, having said that, I find the words of the Attorney General today particularly disappointing and frustrating, as I'm sure do the Vanscoy family in St Catharines, whose daughter was murdered with a stolen handgun, and where, notwithstanding the interventions of Jim Bradley, MPP for St Catharines, and myself by way of questions to the Attorney General in this House, the charge of murder was plea-bargained away with respect to both a lesser offence and a reduced penalty.

The words are of little comfort to Linda Evans from Welland who narrowly, only by the grace of God, escaped death after being stabbed over 30 times and who was ignored in the process of plea-bargaining away the charge of attempted murder against her attacker with an agreed-upon sentence. It's of little comfort to the Taylor family of St Catharines whose case Jim Bradley has pleaded in this Legislature and who remain frustrated by there being no recognition of their rights, notwithstanding Mr Harnick's Victims' Bill of Rights.

It's of little comfort to the thousands of petitioners who, in response to the tragic murder of Theresa Vince in Chatham, have petitioned this government to establish a joint provincial-municipal committee to examine sexual harassment.

This Attorney General is Harnicking us again when he speaks of justice for victims yet advocates increasing numbers and levels of diversion programs for increasingly serious crimes as a response to his underfunding and abandonment of our criminal justice system. Crown attorneys are fewer and fewer in number, increasingly contract crown attorneys, coping with larger and larger caseloads. The pressure on crown attorneys to plea-bargain by this government has increased phenomenally. Crown attorneys face quota systems for guilty pleas, which inevitably leads to the reduction of charges and agreement for sentences well below the appropriate range for offenders.

This Attorney General, speaking of the Victims' Bill of Rights, speaks as he has throughout his career. When you contrast his statement today with the increasing defunding of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, one of the vehicles through which and by which innocent victims can receive compensation for the incredible duress they undergo, I'm afraid this government talks a big game when it comes to justice for victims, will do a great press conference, but simply doesn't deliver. The people out there know it full well and all too painfully.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): As my colleague said, I will be supporting this. I think it's a good step forward. However, in particular in response to the minister's comments about the minister responsible for women's issues -- he says she's shown leadership -- I want to remind people that the minister responsible for women's issues has done just the opposite.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask the minister responsible for women's issues to today announce that second-stage housing will be put back in place and second-stage housing opened. When we talk about women who are victims of violence and their children, when they escape from those abusive situations we all know and studies show that one of the key, most important aspects for their recovery and their ability to get back into the flow of life is that they often need proper counselling for themselves and their kids, and they need a safe place. I'm not talking about first-stage emergency housing but transition housing. That is gone, and that is a crime.

I also want to remind the minister today that we still have not had a response from her, which I believe she promised to have given by now, on the infamous McGuire report, which suggested, we will all remember, that women only be allowed to stay in emergency shelters for 24 to 48 hours and then have neighbours call if they see any problems after they go back home. We have still not heard from this minister or from this government their response to that report. I ask the minister to take a good close look at all the cuts they've already made and the pittance --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): There are a couple of groups in our gallery today. I would like to introduce Colonel Robert Hardie, the former chief aide-de-camp to a number of Lieutenant Governors. Welcome.

I would also like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today members of the parliamentary delegation from the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, comprising Mr Roger Fitzgerald, Mr Anthony Sparrow and Mr Rick Woodford. Please join me in welcoming our guests as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' FEES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Premier. Over the last couple of months I have raised some issues with your Minister of Health and with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario with respect to the question of doctors billing for services that are covered under the OHIP fee schedule, such as a case involving a senior citizen who was forced to pay a $50 fee to book an operating room.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons has acknowledged that they are aware that a number of physicians, particularly specialists and surgical subspecialists, have been charging separately for various components of the insured service they're providing to patients as though these components were uninsured services.

Premier, these extra costs affect the poor, the elderly and those who are least able to cope with them. What does your government intend to do about this situation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): To immediately ask the Minister of Health to respond.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): As the honourable member is aware, both the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons are doing their utmost right now to make sure that doctors know where the line is and that they understand what is included in the payments they receive from OHIP; and that if they're already paid for a service and it's a medically insured service, the Canada Health Act does not allow extra-billing, nor do the laws of this province.

I would say to the honourable member that we have a very good system in place. Every complaint is followed up by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is the quasi-judicial board, and its Medical Review Committee. I encourage all members, as the honourable member has done the right thing, to bring those cases directly to the attention of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, who will investigate the cases and provide appropriate remedies.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): That's the kind of answer we're getting used to hearing from the virtual Minister of Health. He keeps bobbing off in every which direction. We have people like Mr Judd, who now has to pay $10 every time he gets a prescription renewed over the phone. He's disabled. Every time his child, who is disabled, has to not go to school, he has to pay another $10 for a school note. Those are fees which have been entrenched. Now we have seniors who can't go to surgeons, who are getting charged $50 and $75 block fees for services that are supposed to be covered by OHIP even though they say right on the paper that these are services not covered.

You need to take responsibility because the physicians are telling us this is coming from your climate that you've created for doctors, that you've created the need, the necessity for them to go and hive off different types of services and then charge the public for them. You're bringing us down the road to two-tier health. Tell us now that you're prepared to act to make sure this practice doesn't become more widespread and that the college has everything it needs to deal with this.

Hon Mr Wilson: The college does have everything it needs to deal with it. I don't think the honourable member is suggesting we should in any way interfere with the regulation model that's been set up, which is being studied around the world and adopted by governments of all stripes -- and kudos to the NDP government for bringing in the self-governing model which works very effectively.

Each and every one of these cases is taken very seriously by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is made up of laypeople and physicians.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You take them seriously --

Hon Mr Wilson: I take the cases extremely seriously, and it is the appropriate course of action, as under the law, to refer those cases out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of the investigators. That's what's done, and I encourage members to continue to be diligent and to act on behalf of their constituents, as the honourable member from Windsor has done.

Mr Duncan: It's very interesting, because obviously you and the college are not communicating. I'd like to read you a letter I received from the college which says, "The college is currently referring any such matters that come to its attention to the provider services branch of the Ministry of Health." So we have the Minister of Health on the one hand who is saying that the college is doing it; we have the college on the other hand that's saying the minister should be doing it. The problem is that we've got people like Mr Carter, my constituent, who had to pay $50 and, irony of ironies, ultimately it was the Workers' Compensation Board that picked up the cost.

When will you take responsibility to ensure that we continue to have free, accessible public health in this province? Quit passing it off to the college and start dealing with it, and at least get your story straight so that the people of the province, the poor, the elderly, those who can least afford to pay it, have access to a full range of services right across Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: The letter the honourable member is referring to is contained in the recent edition of Dialogue magazine, which goes out to all physicians in the province. It is a letter of the former registrar of the college, Dr Dickson. If he would read the whole letter in, he would give the whole picture to the province.

The college deals the disciplinary matters and quasi-judicial processes involved. The reason they refer back to us is that we reimburse patients once the college has made a determination, so we send a cheque to the patients. If they've been ripped off by $50 or something, then they're reimbursed. Then, if that doesn't alleviate the situation, the college also institutes disciplinary action if they deem it appropriate once due process has been followed through the Medical Review Committee and other procedures that the college follows. I think it's a very good system.

The college acts like a court of law and also acts as the disciplinary body. I don't think he's suggesting that politicians should become the court of law and the disciplinary body.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment. Yesterday, when discussing the issue of the massive dumping into Lake Ontario by Ontario Hydro of 1.8 million pounds of copper and 800,000 pounds of zinc, you went on to dismiss this, basically trivializing it. Afterwards you compared, in media reports, the amount that is found in water to taking a vitamin pill. You have said it takes 150 litres of water with zinc and copper in it to make up what is really one vitamin pill. You have dismissed the concern. You said the water is safe, that this has absolutely no impact on water and no impact on our environment.

Minister, I hope you stand by your word. I would ask you and challenge you to stand by what you said. This is a container of water from Lake Ontario. I dare you: Will you drink from this water today to prove that what you have said is correct?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I indicated yesterday that this is a very serious matter, that we are looking into it in accordance with the law and the processes that are put forward with regard to the Environmental Bill of Rights and that we will get to the bottom of it. But that will take some time as it's a very complex and complicated matter, and we intend to do it in the proper fashion, in a fashion that is consistent.

With regard to the trivialization of this, I responded to a question by a reporter who wanted to compare the effluent with what might be contained in a vitamin tablet which can be purchased at any pharmacy, so I responded --

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): You fell for it.

Hon Mr Sterling: No, I responded to the question. It was not raised by me; it was raised by a reporter and I responded to it. It had nothing to do with trivializing the issue.

Mr Agostino: From your answer in the House yesterday, where you compared this massive dumping into Lake Ontario to copper pipes in a home, when you said first 150 and then your spokesperson said, "Oh, it's only 120 litres of water that will equal one multivitamin pill," it's very clear that you do not believe it has detrimental health effects.

We received information this morning from Cornell University, Michigan State University, University of Oregon and the University of California at Davis. In all these cases the information received is that copper, similar to mercury and lead, is bioaccumulative. It means that over a period of time the human body will suffer. It means scientists we spoke to at these universities clearly agree that a long-term impact of these chemicals in the human body causes health effects such as nausea, shock, weak heart rates, brain damage and in some cases death. It's very clear there's a danger here.

Minister, will you today do the right and honourable thing and authorize a third-party independent review of the coverup that has gone on at Ontario Hydro in the dumping of this into Lake Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: I want to make it absolutely clear that copper in the concentrations we are talking about here are not bioaccumulative. That has been confirmed by scientists at the Ministry of Environment, and to say anything other than that is really just misrepresenting the true facts of the situation. We are not talking about mercury here, we are not talking about lead here; I understand, from the questions and the thrust of the questions here, we've been talking about copper and zinc.

We are going through the proper processes to determine whether or not there are grounds for an investigation as per the Environmental Bill of Rights. We intend to follow the process. We are concerned about the dumping of these particular minerals in Lake Ontario and intend to get to the bottom of it.

Mr Agostino: It's very clear that this minister has no plans whatsoever to launch an independent third-party investigation into the coverup that has occurred at Ontario Hydro. That is wrong. That is unacceptable to the people of Ontario. Minister, you don't seem to understand there's a problem here. There's a problem with a corporation that reports to you as minister. You are responsible for Ontario Hydro. This corporation over the years has been involved in a massive coverup, in illegal dumping into our lakes in this province.

It's unacceptable for them to investigate themselves. Would you allow a private company that has spilled tonnes of chemicals into Lake Ontario to go ahead and investigate themselves and report to you at a later date? Absolutely not. It is unacceptable, Minister. You have a responsibility here and you simply have a conflict. You have to ensure that there's an arm's-length mechanism here to review what has happened. Otherwise, the message to corporations in Ontario is that it's okay, Ontario Hydro can do it. The minister will just nod and wink and turn a blind eye to it.

Minister, if you don't agree to an independent third-party review, then you are part of this coverup that has occurred at Ontario Hydro. I ask you again, restore the confidence in your ministry, do the honourable thing and please today launch an independent third-party review.

Hon Mr Sterling: The process that is outlined under the Environmental Bill of Rights requires that the Ministry of Environment act on its own through my officials, through some of the directors and the assistant directors who are responsible for these matters. They make the decision on the basis of the information they have before them as to whether an investigation should go forward.

It is clearly outlined in the Environmental Bill of Rights that when this is brought to the attention of the Environmental Commissioner and then to the ministry there is a time frame for that to happen. We will fully comply with those provisions, go through the process, make those decisions in accordance with the facts presented to us and launch an investigation if the facts prove that to be that case and the directors make that decision.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Premier. Last August your government closed eight offices of the family support plan and laid off 290 experienced staff. As a result, thousands and thousands of women and children who used to receive regular support payments did not receive these and suffered serious financial loss as a consequence.

Day after day last fall in this House we raised case after case of women and children who were suffering and we told this government that this situation was a crisis. Every time we raised a question and a case, your Attorney General said there wasn't a problem, told us things were getting better, tried to blame other governments, employers, payors and everyone else he could find with respect to the matter.

But yesterday the Ombudsman said in her report the following, and I quote, "The manner in which the transition was carried out by the family support plan caused hardship for individuals whom the plan was designed to benefit." Premier, are you finally prepared to admit that your government was wrong when you decided to finance your phoney tax cut off the backs of these women and children?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Of course the tax cut has given us more jobs and revenue, so we would have more dollars to provide services to the people of Ontario. This is now being widely acknowledged throughout the province. So the premise, I guess, of the motive of the question is absolutely ludicrous.

Second, I think we have indicated all along that while the plan was an absolute unmitigated disaster that we inherited and the plan we are putting in place is in fact already better but still not perfect and will be even better in the future, we wished that the transition from disaster that we inherited from you to a better plan could have been done more smoothly. I think so does the Ombudsman and so do we.

Ms Martel: Premier, I know where the Attorney General gets his lesson from. You are just as bad as he is in trying to blame everyone else for what happened at the family support plan. The fact of the matter is, Mr Premier, your Attorney General decided to cut the budget of the family support plan by 35% over two years as part of the savings he was trying to find for your tax cut. That's the reality. You can't blame that on anyone else.

The report that was put forward by the Ombudsman yesterday was damning in its indictment of your government and how this transition was handled. She made it perfectly clear that thousands and thousands of women and children and families were victimized by your government because of the bungling of the transition on the part of your Attorney General. There was no excuse for what happened. He knew this would be the consequence and the result for thousands and thousands of families, yet your Attorney General proceeded anyway to victimize these people further.

When, Premier, are you going to accept some responsibility for the victimization of women and children who depend on support payments --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: As soon as we took office we accepted responsibility for fixing one of the worst-run programs in the history of this government. We brought in legislative changes; we brought in a number of amendments; we brought in probably the toughest policy that exists in Canada to try and provide support for those who are owed funds as a result of what is regrettably lack of support from one spouse or the other to children.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Harris: We have indicated that the transition to the centralized, far more efficient and what will be a far more effective program took longer and didn't go as smoothly as we would have liked. But the fundamental principle that the program was a disgrace --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. Final supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Premier, I don't think you understand what your government's attack on the family support plan did to women and their kids. Eviction notices were served; mortgages were foreclosed on; utility bills went unpaid and water and gas and electricity were turned off; phone bills went unpaid; and people had to line up at barren food banks for food because the moneys that were being paid by their supporting spouses weren't being delivered to them.

You hurt women and kids, and the Ombudsman's report is very clear that it was your dismantling of eight regional offices, your termination of almost 300 staff, your defunding of the family support plan by 35% that caused that victimization and hardship. When will somebody in your government finally accept their ministerial responsibility and go beyond merely saying, "I'm sorry," to accept responsibility for the victimization of these women and kids and resign?

Hon Mr Harris: I suppose when we took office we could have left the failed program in place and pointed the finger at you for the term of our mandate, but we opted instead to take a disgraceful disaster of a program -- well-intentioned, we acknowledge -- and try and correct it.

We brought in opting out for those who agree, something that both sides had lobbied for. We brought in driver's licence suspension, we brought in credit bureau reporting and we undertook to take a program and had the courage to go in and say: "This has failed. It's not working. Everybody knows it's not working. It will be difficult, but it is something we must tackle and try and make better in the long term."

Let me agree with those in the program, with those in opposition and with the Ombudsman that we all wished we could have fixed the disgrace more quickly, but we are determined to have a better program in the end.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to warn the members for Riverdale, London Centre, Sudbury East and Welland-Thorold to come to order, please. It's a warning. I'm not going to warn you again.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday the report of the Ombudsman contained within it scathing evidence regarding your government's incompetence in implementing your own agenda. In reporting on the problems which your Attorney General caused in the family support plan, the Ombudsman confirms our concern that real people are being badly hurt by incompetent implementation of massive change, and she warned that similar chaos could result in other areas of radical change, in hospital restructuring, for example.

The Attorney General said yesterday, "One of those significant recommendations for me was to convey to my colleagues some of the problems we had." Minister, can you tell us today what advice the Attorney General has given you that you can apply to hospital restructuring?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The Attorney General and I chat regularly. I read the Ombudsman's report, and I didn't see anything wrong with the Ministry of Health in it, so I don't understand your question.

Mrs Boyd: It's quite clear you don't understand the concern people all over this province have about the incompetence of your government in managing massive change. That's the issue.

In Thunder Bay, for example, your restructuring commission has already delivered its decisions. The Thunder Bay Regional Hospital has bed targets it must meet. In Thunder Bay you've reduced the transfer to the hospitals, and in Thunder Bay you announced restructuring money and home care money. Why, then, is there a critical bed shortage?

As reported in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal on Saturday, there are people waiting in emergency rooms for as long as two days because all the acute care beds are full. As a result, waiting lists for surgery are growing and the hospital cannot open any more beds because they're bound by the restructuring commission orders. This is the same kind of problem that the Ombudsman warned would happen in areas like hospital restructuring.

Minister, can you explain to us why the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital has been forced to close beds, putting patients in danger, when the alternatives are not yet in place?

Hon Mr Wilson: In the same article, the administrator points out that patient care has not been adversely affected. They're going through transition there. The government has put forward $59 million, unprecedented amounts, to go through that restructuring. The fact is that the

article points out that when the 54 transitional beds are put in place at St Joe's, the problem will be relieved. Right now the hospital corporation is exercising flexibility to make sure people have beds. That is to be, quite fairly, expected in any transitional period.

A plan is in place, and the experts are just defining the final definition of what "transitional beds" are. That's an exciting thing for northern Ontario, to have transitional beds, which means that rather than sending people home early, as under your two governments, people will now be able to stay in a lower-cost bed --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- not as expensive as an acute care hospital bed but a higher-cost bed than a nursing home bed. That's a new area of health care in Ontario's --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mrs Boyd: That may excite you and it may excite the administrators at the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital, but I can tell you that the feelings of the patients lying in those emergency rooms and their families are quite different. They're not excited; they're fearful. Yes, all of us can see that this vision may eventually give better care. What about the people who are suffering in the meantime?

You are standing in your place and making the same kinds of excuses the Attorney General made about women and kids who are going hungry because of his incompetence. Don't fall into the same trap. You know very well that the CAC is not yet operational. You know very well that the $2.4 million you've announced for home care hasn't materialized. You know that the transitional beds aren't ready because the capital plan has lagged way behind. Those people who are occupying those beds have nowhere to go because those transitional beds aren't in place. When are you going to accept your responsibility to be out making sure that people are not suffering now because of your vision of a distant future?

Hon Mr Wilson: The government's responsibility was to provide the dollars and the leadership. Back in March, on March 3 to be exact, I announced $7.67 million of new money for health care in Thunder Bay to increase community services. There is not one reason today, except for a shortage of professionals, that community services there haven't increased dramatically. The money is there. We pay those invoices every 30 days, depending on the service they provide, and they have a licence now to provide hundreds more hours of nursing in the community than they had when you were in office or when the Liberals were in office.

Also I would point to the fact that there is a plan in place, transitional beds will come on line, and the hospitals should be commended for doing --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): When?

Hon Mr Wilson: Well, by December 2 they expect to have the beds in place. The beds have to be built. St. Joe's, which hasn't undergone renovations in years, is going to undergo renovations and is going to be an absolutely world-class health care system in Thunder Bay. The local community should be congratulated for making the transition --

The Speaker: Thank you Minister. New question.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Over 1,000 adult education students are circling the Legislature right now. They're joining hands as a link for their continued education, which is being threatened by your education policy that discriminates against students over 21 years of age. Their circle symbolizes the unity of adult education students as they fight to maintain current funding levels for all high school students regardless of age.

One of the students who came out today and spoke outside is Elaine Lloyd-Robinson. She spoke for all the students when she said how much completing her secondary education meant to her, how it will open doors for her and how it will help her break into the job market with skills she learned at the Scarborough Centre for Alternative Studies. Elaine spoke on behalf of all the adult students, including Kim Briggs-Hartneal and Emma Gordon-Reynolds from Scarborough and Terrie Leah-Toner from East York, who attended today.

Elaine and over 1,000 students are here today, Minister, trying again to get your attention, and they're saying, don't cut their day school education. Will you listen to them?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Scarborough North for the question. It's an opportunity to make sure people understand that the province continues to provide funding for adult education right across the province and that adult education programs continue to be offered by schools right across the province and we have no intention of changing that.

In fact we proposed a special

section for funding for adult education in our new allocation model particularly to meet the needs of adult students. We understand that training and education programs for adults are important, not just for the individuals, but for the future of this province. We believe there is no one system of providing that training and that education for adults that will perfectly meet the individual circumstances of all those different people.

That's why we have continued to support a variety of programs, including those in school, but also the Independent Learning Centre, which allows adult students to learn on their own course, the college upgrading courses provided across the province, a whole variety of training programs, and why I and my colleagues are proud of --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Supplementary.

Mr Curling: If you take your head out of the book, you will realize you've cut the funding for them, Minister. Once again, you're taking money out of the classroom to fund your tax cut, and you know it, at the cost of adult students who will not have the essential training they need to find jobs.

These programs are jeopardizing their opportunity to do something about what they want to do. You committed in your pre-election platform, if you recall, and I quote: "Not enough is being invested in students directly. Classroom-based budgeting will help ensure that this essential service is protected and indeed that excellence in education and training is enhanced."

You have cut that, and they have told you over and over. You've shifted around and danced around, and the bottom line is that you have cut funding from adult education and are treating these people as second-class citizens. Take your head out of the book and deal with the issue at hand. Will you listen to that, Minister, and do something about it?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Scarborough North can try to paint this any way he wants, but the truth and the fact remain that this province is committed to adult education and training programs and we continue to fund those programs across the province. As a matter of fact, this government, my colleagues and I, do not believe that those education and training programs should be supplied through any one delivery system. Adults should have a variety of options that meet their circumstances.

We particularly believe that adults should not have to conform to programs that were designed for adolescents. We believe that the needs of adults are individual, that they're unique and that we must continue to improve our training and education system to meet those individual needs.

I remind the member for Scarborough North that in my own family, my father participated in those programs for adult education. My father was called to the bar late in life and I at least among my colleagues understand the need for adult education and have some compassion for the people who are in that system.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): My question is for the Chair of Management Board, who is the minister responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Your government has already been publicly chastised for its incompetence in managing and protecting confidential government files. After all this, can you explain to us why confidential government records continue to be left to languish in the hallways of office towers, left there unattended, unsealed, unsecured and accessible to any passerby?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): If the member opposite has any particular information, any particular location of any particular confidential information, I would be pleased to receive that information and to look into it and to get him an answer.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): After receiving a call from a concerned citizen of the public, my colleague from Welland-Thorold and I visited a downtown Toronto office tower this morning where we found stacks of boxes lining the hallways which contained confidential government and personnel documents with SIN numbers. We understand that the boxes have been left there unattended, unsecured, unsealed, for over two months now. If you want to get a full briefing, you can come to our press conference at 3:30 and see a copy of the video.

I say to the minister that it is clear from the second incident that the government has failed to learn any lesson as a consequence of the bungling of the family support plan transition. In fact, the government continues to slash and burn government services, forgetting that government itself has some responsibilities; in this case, the responsibility to protect personnel and government records and files. Your cuts are having a serious impact on how government operates.

The Speaker: Question please.

Ms Martel: Are you prepared to admit today that your cuts have been so deep that your government is incapable now of carrying out its responsibilities, like protecting --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Sudbury East.

Hon David Johnson: Far from the truth. This government, in a systematic, businesslike way, through business plans -- for the first time ever in the history of the province we have introduced business plans to restructure the government in a systematic way, to tackle the expenditures that have been rung up by the previous two governments. As a result, we now have reduced the deficit considerably. We are on track to eliminating the deficit. We are on track to start paying down that debt by the end of this term of government. This is what the people of Ontario have been asking for for years and years.

I am unaware of any particular confidential information that is getting out into hands, that is being misused. If the members opposite have a specific address, specific information, again, let me know about it and I'll be delighted to look into it.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. As you know, this spring seniors in my riding of Simcoe East expressed to me their concern about the annual deductible for the Ontario drug benefit plan. Despite a sincere effort at communicating the dates of the annual benefit coverage, the information remained unclear and confusing to many seniors. I know they were pleased to hear yesterday of the government's decision to extend the benefit year for coverage under the plan. Could the minister inform the House how our seniors' input affected this decision and explain why the new date of August 1, 1999, was chosen?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I want to thank my colleague from Simcoe East for raising the concerns, as he does frequently, on behalf of the seniors in his riding.

Over the course of the last eight months, our government has undertaken a round table of discussions with seniors' organizations all across the province. In fact, on April 8 six organizations met directly with the Treasurer to discuss issues in preparation for our budget, of which the drug plan was one.

Seniors' groups clearly indicated their two primary concerns: First, knowing we had the lowest copayments in Canada, they didn't want them increased; and second, after years of having drugs held off the market in this province, they wanted to thank the government for increasing the number of drugs to 465 new drugs in the last two years, making Ontario the most comprehensive drug benefit plan in North America at the lowest cost.

I remind members that 1.5 million Ontario residents pay $2 for their drugs in this province, the lowest anywhere in North America.

Mr McLean: Since there has been so much confusion regarding the original benefit year, I'm wondering if the minister could take the opportunity to clarify for the House the implications for constituents who may be celebrating their 65th birthday soon and will be entering the insurance plan for the first time. Explain to me how they will do that.

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to make it clear that the government communicated a year and a half ago that the anniversary date was April 1. We can clearly demonstrate that we told the media, we talked to every member of this House in communications, we talked to every pharmacist in this province. But we're the first to admit that we could have done a better job communicating that to seniors and we appreciate that seniors have provided us with that input.

The date of August 1, 1998, has been chosen because it will give full coverage for seniors in this province for 16 full months. We believe that is fair and reasonable with respect to the support for this program.

As it relates to seniors who are turning 65, we have offered this additional benefit to seniors. If a senior turns 65 in February, for example, they will be prorated and therefore they would only pay $50 for their insurance deductible and not the full $100.

I remind members opposite that these --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Jackson: I'm working on that, Mr Speaker.

With the lowest-cost drug plan in Canada, we're very pleased that we have been able to respond to the seniors of Ontario, but be mindful that August 1, 1998, is the next anniversary.

The Speaker: Minister, I know you've been working on it, but you get a minute and 10. You've been working on that answer for a couple of days, actually.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, you've had a controversial and disturbing report sitting on your desk now since December 17. The report has become known as the McGuire report. It's the one that recommends, among many other things, that women be forced to leave emergency shelters within 48 hours.

The recommendations in this report have caused a great deal of anxiety, and that anxiety has been heightened by the fact that you have so far refused to distance yourself from the report and because you have delayed so long in responding to it. You promised a response fully two months ago.

Minister, will you tell women today that you have indeed torn up the McGuire report and will you assure them that any changes in programs and funding that you are making are not in the direction of the proposals of that report?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I would like to advise my colleague and critic that we have been working very hard on the responses to the McGuire report, to come to better solutions in responding to the needs of families across this province.

We are extremely excited about making a major response, including some 27 million new dollars to be spent over four years to deal with issues that affect the quality of women's lives around violence. We are absolutely committed to ending violence in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you're the one who commissioned the report. It is an alarming report. It needs to be torn up. I guess the fact that you have not distanced yourself from it yet again today makes us very concerned that the real goal of the McGuire report and your real goal, the goal of your government in commissioning it, was to find efficiencies in the programs that deal with violence against women; that the real goal is to find ways of cutting dollars. That's why that report recommends that you shift dollars away from programs that provide protection for women to what you call prevention and it is why you yourself have misrepresented the importance of shelters in providing protection.

You said recently that you've eliminated administrative waste that drains our resources. You've cut funding for shelters, you've cut funding for counselling and second-stage housing, you've proposed shifting resources away from more places that offer protection to women who need support and protection. I ask you whether or not that is your idea of administrative waste and if that's where we're going to see more cuts in the future.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Before she answers the question, I want to say that you must withdraw the fact that you charge the minister with misrepresenting. That's not parliamentary.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I will certainly indicate that the minister has made it clear that she sees a different role for shelters than those that shelters --

The Speaker: You don't have to clarify; you just have to withdraw.

Mrs McLeod: I'll withdraw the word "misrepresent."

Hon Mrs Cunningham: On the last note with regard to shelters, shelters have been the foundation and the core and the very beginning of extremely important services to protect women who have been the victims of violence, and they will remain so. They actually have been working with us to enhance the role of all agencies across Ontario.

It really is very tiresome to get this kind of information from two governments that did nothing to make sure that programs worked, did nothing to know whether there was waste and duplication, did not focus on the wide range of services across nine ministries and 30 programs that we are doing. We continue to get good advice and good information.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): You shouldn't make things up to get off the hook.

The Speaker: That's unparliamentary. You can't charge a minister with making things up.

Ms Churley: I withdraw that I charged the minister with making things up. I withdraw it.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: People who are tremendously involved in finding solutions and helping us come back with a major response for programs and prevention of violence against women --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: -- would not make those kind of accusations. We do not have that kind of commitment from that member.

I will go on to say that just in today's --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. The minister talks a lot about equity in funding in the education system, but he will know that he has left out of that a large number of students, thousands of students in this province, about a thousand of whom have circled the building here today.

The cutbacks the minister has made in transfer payments to boards and in adult education have led to the decimation of adult education programs in the province. Now that the province is taking over control of education funding, 12,000 students attending adult education day schools risk the loss of their schools and their courses, their education. Will the minister reconsider his position and extend equitable funding to adult day school programs in this province?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the member for Algoma, I believe that if you look at what's going on in Ontario now, if you have a look at what's happening in terms of training for adults, of education for adults, you'll see a dramatic improvement in the services available for adults now versus two years ago. Included in that is that for the first time Ontario has a full GED program available for adult learners. It recognizes the fact that people learn in classrooms but they also learn in life.

This is a program that recognizes the learning that adults may have had in their business or other circumstances and allows them to get a high school equivalency. This GED program is available in nine other provinces and 50 states but was not available in Ontario until we took office. It now is available to adult learners right across the province. I and my colleagues are proud of that.

Mr Wildman: The minister's response doesn't take into account the dramatic drop in the registration of adults in adult education programs in the province. The fact is that this government says it wants people who are not now able to be productive and contribute to society, to provide for themselves and their families, to get the skills they require. Many of those students don't just require a course; they require supports that are only available in a day school program, that are not available in the continuing education program.

How does the minister expect these students to get the kinds of supports they require in a continuing education program, and if he does think they can do that, can he explain to us now how it's going to be provided?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I find it hard to imagine that the member for Algoma doesn't understand that there's a difference between the services and supports and programs that are appropriate for adolescents, and the programs and supports that are necessary for adults who would like to get the accreditation. It's a very different set of circumstances.

Just to point out to the member opposite, not only are the continuing education programs available for adults through our school system, and they continue to be available for adults through our school system, we also have the Independent Learning Centre, which provides individually tailored, learn-at-home programs for adults right across the province. We have college upgrading courses available in our community colleges across the province.

We have a whole host and variety of training programs and we are now looking at making improvements to those training programs and the GED program, the high school equivalency program I just mentioned. There is a vast array of programs available for adults so they can become more productive members of our society and can get that individual satisfaction from completing their education.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It concerns the number of people both from inside the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale and from without who are thinking of running in the upcoming elections in the new unified city of Toronto.

What they would like to know is how the municipal affairs ministry will deal with the question of political contributions or tax credits, because Metropolitan Toronto in the past, for candidates for those positions, has offered tax credits to donors, and I believe the same for the city of Toronto, yet other parts of Metropolitan Toronto such as Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough have not. The same with the Hydro commissions.

What these folks would like to know is, how will the ministry handle this situation so we'll have a balanced and even playing field for all potential and registered candidates in the upcoming election.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for the question. This is an issue that is of interest to his constituents and, as a matter of fact, of interest to people right across Ontario.

We have been asked by numerous people from around the province to establish a rebate system for citizens contributing to municipal election campaigns very similar to what we have for provincial and federal campaigns. As a result, on May 12 of this year we filed a regulation which will allow a rebating system for municipal candidates as long as all the proper procedures are followed. We know this process will assist and benefit citizens from across Ontario who want to contribute to municipal campaigns.

Mr Hastings: In other words, then, the application of the new arrangement will affect all candidates who are registered in the upcoming election, not only for the new unified city of Toronto but right across the province, and they will not have to create their own separate individual bylaw respective of each municipality.

Hon Mr Leach: The rebate system we propose is very similar to what now exists in the province and with the federal government. If a contribution is $100 or less, the rebate is 75% of the contribution, and if a contribution is more than $100 but not more than $400, the rebate is 75% plus 50% of the difference between the contribution and $100. To provide a practical example, if an individual contributes $300 to a campaign, their rebate would be $175. However, it is very important to remind the House that there are financial forms and receipts that all campaigns will have to fill out to make sure the rebates can be given back to the parties.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Construction workers and contractors in Hawkesbury, Cornwall, Maxville, Ottawa, Pembroke, Windsor and all across Ontario are still losing their jobs because of your government's inability to resolve the labour mobility issue with Quebec.

It is obvious that we have many cases to prove it. The new agreement with Quebec does nothing for our construction workers. Last week a construction site in Montreal was completely shut down because, of the 50 workers, four were from Ontario. On the Perley Bridge in Hawkesbury, only 5% of the workforce on the site are from Ontario and the rest are from Quebec. My question is, do Ontario workers have to do like Quebeckers and shut down the Perley Bridge site, or will your government take action to secure jobs for Ontarians?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Contrary to the information you are presenting, there is certainly some gain taking place and our people are having access to Quebec, which they have never, ever had before. Obviously, there are people on both sides of the border who still continue to become upset and there will continue to be some disputes, but I would indicate to you that we have made progress beyond what has happened anywhere else in Canada. We negotiated an agreement and obviously it's going to take some time before we have complete free and equal access to both sides.

Mr Lalonde: On May 7 in this House the member for Nepean said that constituents in his riding were concerned about the monitoring of this agreement. Your answer to the member was, "The agreement is there and is working." Last Thursday my office received a phone call from Alexanian Carpet in the riding of Nepean that vans are being stopped and that unless the workers hold a Quebec permit, the van and the contents are being confiscated.

Ontario workers and contractors are reluctant to go to Quebec because they are victims of harassment. Their cars and trucks are being vandalized and their tires are being slashed. Are you prepared to take necessary procedures to ensure that Ontario workers are treated fairly, that there will be no more harassment and vandalism. After all, are we not all Canadians?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's extremely important that we distinguish the situations you're presenting to us as being distinct from the negotiation of the agreement. For example, the incidents of vandalism that you refer to are obviously issues that need to be dealt with by the law authorities. It's not something we can do anything about within the agreement. I would hope that when these incidents do occur, those individuals who are responsible for law and order would take the appropriate means and deal with those issues appropriately. They are beyond what we are capable of doing in the agreement.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. A vital health care project is in danger of being lost. Savard's (Women's Street Survivor Project) is a shelter for homeless women with chronic and severe mental illness. It provides not just shelter, but medical attention and supervision for these women.

In spite of your announcements of money for community-based services, your ministry will not support this shelter and it is in danger of closing. Apparently, your ministry can't figure out whether this project belongs in the long-term-care system or the mental health system. The situation is inexcusable because this is exactly the kind of project we need to cope with both the closure of mental health beds and the reduction in emergency wards and acute-care beds in this province.

Minister, are you going to get your act together and ensure that services like this one are available when you bounce hundreds of patients out of your psychiatric hospitals?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The question, at the very least, is cruel and unwarranted. You closed psychiatric beds without putting the community services in place. That trend continued up until we came to office two years ago. We've put a moratorium on the closure of psychiatric beds until those community services are in place. No other government had the courage to do that. Secondly, we have put millions of dollars into exactly these types of community-based services, including crisis response and a whole range of services.

I will take from the honourable member the specific case and I will endeavour to get back to her, but to say that people are being put out in the street because of anything this government did is to not give credit where credit is due, and that is that we have been increasing community services and not allowing for the closure of mental health beds.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, the member for Fort York.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The number of women using the shelter system has increased dramatically. It's getting worse, partly because there is a lack of affordable land or appropriate housing. Everyone knows that. My colleague said Savard's is a unique environment, providing a safe haven for women who have long histories of homelessness combined with serious medical problems, and mental health problems to boot.

This is an innovative project and it's in jeopardy of closing. Are you, along with the minister of the women's directorate and the Minister of Housing, going to let Savard's down, or are the three of you going to show leadership and find a way to make sure that Savard's is there to provide housing for those who are suffering a great deal?

Hon Mr Wilson: We're currently reviewing the situation that the honourable member describes. We're working with other ministries and Metro social services to determine whether this particular facility is one that should survive and continue to provide services or whether another plan is needed. Clearly we have increasingly more and more homeless people, clearly many of those people suffer mental illness and clearly we have to do more.

I will take the honourable member's submission into account when we make this decision, but I do sincerely want him to know that we're working very hard with a number of agencies to ensure that those community services, particularly services to homeless women, are increased in this province.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, as you know, I represent a riding high atop Hamilton Mountain that is made up of a significant percentage of blue-collar workers, all of whom have a vested interest in occupational health and safety, as do their white-collar colleagues and neighbours. They are, as I am, well aware of your ongoing review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It's my understanding that the regional consultations have been completed. That being the case, could you please update us on the status of this review?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I'm pleased to report that yes, the regional consultations have finished. We did go to Hamilton, we went to Niagara Falls, Windsor, Barrie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Ottawa, and we met with unions, employees, employers and health and safety professionals. We are this week completing our consultations with some of our key stakeholders in Toronto, and this summer it is our hope that we can review the information that has been presented to us and collect all the feedback.

Mr Pettit: That's very encouraging news, but could you outline for the members of the House and also my constituents on Hamilton Mountain when we could anticipate hearing about the results of the review?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member knows, health and safety is certainly a priority for our government. Our objective is to ensure that we have among the safest workplaces in the world. In fact, we have recently set a target of a 30% reduction in lost-time injuries in this province by the year 2000. It is important that we draft legislation that will respond to the concerns that have been identified, and we hope that in the fall we will have something ready for the members of this House.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you would like to be viewed by the public as a road safety guy, the guy who is going to make our roads safe. Frankly, it's all wet, because none of that is coming true.

We have a very specific request for you that we have put in writing, that we have met individually about. We have talked to you about this for months. We're asking you for a flashing warning light on Huron Line and Cousineau Road so that people in my riding who are near this very large thoroughfare with all of this truck traffic can feel safe when they're crossing the intersection.

We have school buses carrying children, our precious cargo, every day going through this intersection and we are simply asking you for a second flashing warning light at that corner. The people in my riding will be very interested in your response today because you're the guy who says you're all about road safety.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): Certainly I would like to thank the member for the endorsement as this government is committed to safety. But as far as the flashing red light the member mentioned is concerned, we have installed one of these lights in her particular region. We've also done various lights throughout the province in other areas.

One of the things we have said is that we'd like an opportunity to see if these flashing lights are indeed going to work before we start investing in more of these flashing lights and then finding out that they aren't really going to make a difference in the traffic, so why spend money. Possibly we have to put in a full-blown light rather than just a flashing light.

I want to tell the honourable member that we are committed to safety and we are going to do what it takes to make sure that our roads are in fact safe.

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition concerns smaller class sizes and Bill 110. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for Sudbury, which promotes smaller class sizes, passed second reading; and

"Whereas this bill, known as Bill 110, was referred to the social development committee; and

"Whereas we, the stakeholders in education, want the government committee to hear what we have to say about smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas we want to hear what the government committee has to say regarding smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas all people in Ontario have a right to speak to the social development committee about smaller class sizes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the recommendation that the social development committee travel across Ontario to find out what the students, parents, teachers and taxpayers of Ontario are saying about smaller class sizes and Bill 110, the smaller class sizes act."

Of course I affix my signature to the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by hundreds of members of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 175 and 633, and this was forwarded to me by Herb MacDonald, who is the benefits coordinator for those locals. The petition reads as follows:

"To Premier Harris:

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system including reducing benefits; excluding claims for repetitive strain injuries, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress, harassment and most occupational diseases; 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; integrating sick benefits into WCB; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT; including eliminating worker representation on the board and eliminating the bipartite WCB board of directors.

"We, the undersigned, therefore demand a safe workplace, compensation if we are injured, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, an independent appeals structure with worker representation, access to the office of the worker adviser, that the WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality non-commercial television that continues to focus 70% of its programming on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVO is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVO continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

I affix my own signature in full agreement with the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINICS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition, signed by union members all across Ontario, forwarded to me by the Ontario Federation of Labour.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Inc (OHCOW) provides high-quality professional medical, hygiene and ergonomic services to employers, workers, joint health and safety committees and their communities;

"Whereas the professional services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to organizations such as the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, increasing the demand for the services provided by OHCOW;

"Whereas the professional and technical expertise and advice provided by OHCOW have made a significant contribution to improvements to workplace health and safety as well as the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call upon the government to maintain the funding of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers and oppose any attempt to alter the governance structure or erode the professional and technical services of OHCOW.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that OHCOW be provided with the necessary funds to allow expansion into other Ontario communities in order to provide the professional and technical services needed to reduce occupational injuries, illnesses and death."

I add my name to theirs.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition here which I'm submitting on behalf of the member for Simcoe West signed by approximately 363 residents of his riding. It concerns Women's College Hospital. The petition is opposed to the changes that are being contemplated by the restructuring commission.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I received the following petition from a number of people who are addressing it to the government of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature as I am in full agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by members of the Bricklayers' and Masons' Union Number 1 from my home community of Hamilton-Wentworth. The petition reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre has provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

CHILD CARE

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas child care is an essential service to the working parents of Ontario;

"Whereas early childhood education is an important aspect of child development;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

"Maintain wage grants for professionals and providers in licensed child care at existing levels; and

"Maintain present ratios for children under the age of five; and

"Conduct public consultation across the province before the implementation of the child care review."

ROUTE 17

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition ici à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que des accidents surviennent sur une base régulière et qu'un rapport de la Police provinciale de l'Ontario de Rockland démontre que 23 accidents sérieux sont survenus au cours des huit derniers mois sur la route 17 entre Rockland et Orléans ;

«Attendu qu'une étude démontre que pas moins de 18 000 voitures circulent chaque jour sur cette portion de 20 kilomètres de la route 17 ;

«Attendu que la conception d'ébauches est complétée, des audiences publiques ont eu lieu et des parcelles de terrain ont été achetées ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Nous demandons au ministre des Transports, Al Palladini, de remettre sur la liste des priorités le projet d'élargissement de la route 17 entre le chemin Trim et Clarence Point et nous demandons au gouvernement de mettre de côté les fonds nécessaires pour l'exécution de ce projet avant de remettre aux municipalités la responsabilité de la route 17.»

J'y ajoute ma signature.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Cathy Maxwell of the early childhood education department of the Fennell campus of Mohawk College. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Labour has begun a process to fundamentally alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations with the release of the discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act;

"Whereas these changes threaten to deregulate the health and safety protection for workers and reduce or eliminate the rights of workers and joint health and safety committees;

"Whereas the ministry intentionally organized meetings in a manner which allowed only marginal opportunity for workers to discuss with the ministry the issues raised in the discussion paper;

"Whereas workers deserve a full opportunity to be heard regarding the proposals that threaten the legislated provisions that provide them with protection from workplace injury, illness and death;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the deregulation of workplace health and safety and any erosion of the protection provided workers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that province-wide public hearings be held once any amendments to the act are introduced."

As I agree with the content, I sign this petition in support.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition from some residents of the riding of Niagara South which reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cuts to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules for the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon these proposed draconian rule changes and retain rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Julie Nielson, the WCB specialist from the building trades WCB services. The petition reads as follows:

"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 diseases; 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, WCAT; deducting Canada pension plan disability benefits and union pensions dollar for dollar from WCB benefits;

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

I proudly add my name to theirs.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting the National Ballet of Canada.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr80,

An Act respecting the Young Women's Christian Association of Niagara Falls.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1997

Mr Christopherson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Madam Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to proceed with second and third reading of Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act and to make consequential amendments.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is that agreed? Agreed.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE WATERLOO

Mr Leach moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act and to make consequential amendments / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la municipalité régionale de Waterloo et apportant des modifications corrélatives.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I introduced this package of amendments on June 2 to respond to a local solution for a municipal restructuring that all municipalities in the area have agreed to. We are implementing a local request with this legislation.

This bill will reduce the size of regional council to 22 members from 26. This legislation will also allow for the direct election of the regional chair. These measures will result in fewer politicians and improved accountability for the municipal government in the Waterloo region.

In six of the seven municipalities which make up the region, excluding Kitchener, members of the regional council will be elected by voters to sit on both the regional and local councils in the 1997 municipal elections. In Kitchener, this form of double direct election will not take place until the year 2000, as council has not yet completed its discussions on the election of its representatives to the regional council. Kitchener regional councillors will continue to be chosen by the Kitchener city council in 1997.

As you know, municipal restructuring is a cornerstone of the government's overall agenda and I am very pleased to be able to further the process in this very important region of Ontario. The new restructuring process we have set in motion across this province will result in stronger municipalities that are fiscally better to position for the future.

We will continue to shrink government, and that's because all citizens of Ontario are shouldering too large a tax load. The taxpayers wants a smaller, more efficient public sector and they want less government.

Waterloo region has understood what some others have not: that it's important to put new structures in place now.

I would like to acknowledge the involvement and support of the government caucus members from the Waterloo region, including the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Labour, and the municipal representatives in the area, including the regional chairman. They all agree that it is important for this bill to be in place for this November's municipal elections. They agree there is a need to streamline the representational system, improve accountability and reduce the size of government.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions or comments? Further debate?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me at the outset say that we agree with this particular amendment. I know it's something the regional municipality of Kitchener-Waterloo has been looking for for some time. As a matter of fact, we were prepared to move on this a month or so ago and for some inexplicable reason it wasn't dealt with at that point in time. But we certainly feel it ought to be dealt with so that the people in the region of Waterloo and all the municipalities that form part of the region know exactly what the electoral process is going to be this coming fall.

It's unfortunate that not all the citizens in some of the other areas that are looked at for restructuring will have that same luxury.

As we saw yesterday, there was a private member's bill introduced, for example, for Ottawa-Carleton that calls for a report to be presented by October 1. Nobody seems to know, whatever that report may say, whether it's going to be a one-tier region, whether it's going to be a number of municipalities restructured as they are in that particular area, what form it will take as far as the election in November of this year is concerned.

It leaves those people who want to run for office up in the air as to exactly what they're running for, but it also leaves the general public up in the air as to exactly what kind of formal structure they will have come election time. It seems to me people have the right to know what kinds of councils with what kind of governance structure they're going to have at least three or four months before the municipal elections this year.

There were a couple of interesting comments the minister made. First of all he talks about the notion of reducing the number of municipalities we have in Ontario from over 800 to somewhere around 650, that that's a cornerstone of this government's agenda.

I have maintained all along that a bigger government isn't necessarily a better or cheaper government, and that seems to be the modus operandi this government is operating under, that as long as we get rid of all sorts of local governments and get rid of more and more politicians, local politicians, then somehow we'll all be better off. I don't think that's necessarily so at all. There may very well be situations where as a result of locally driven solutions municipalities decide to merge, amalgamate or restructure, and I'm totally in favour of that.

But to go at it in a way whereby the blame for all the problems that municipalities, according to the government, have is somehow due to the number of local municipal politicians we have right now, that that is the main problem of local government, I totally reject that.

For example, when we look at Chatham-Kent and the restructuring proposal that was put into place there, which will take it from 141 municipal politicians in that area to 18, I say to myself, without knowing all that much about it other than the briefings I've had and what I've read in the paper and the contacts I've had in that area, that 141 local politicians may very well be too many, but I certainly think that going to 18 to look after that same area -- you're still going to have the same land mass, you're still going to have the same municipal problems, you're still going to have the same service levels etc presumably that were there before -- is simply going too far.

What you're really talking about, when you go down from 141 politicians to 18 politicians -- or you can pick whatever number you want -- what you're saying is that the local politicians simply will not have the same ability to react to the kinds of problems his or her neighbours or constituents may have in the same way they currently do. One thing that undoubtedly is going to happen is that the contact between the local politician and the constituent in those particular wards or areas or ridings is going to diminish tremendously the more local politicians you take out of the process.

I'm very concerned about that because I firmly believe that one of the reasons local government has worked extremely well in Ontario over the last 100 to 150 years is that in most situations there is the immediate contact between local politicians and the people they represent. What we're talking about with all these amalgamations is, number one, less democracy. The kind of input the local citizen wants in this local decision-making process will simply not be the same if the politicians he or she wants to have contact with are going to be further and further removed from the process and are going to represent larger areas with many more people than they presently do.

The basis of this seems to be that the government somehow wants the people of Ontario to believe that politicians are the people who cost money in the system. Although that may be something a lot of people can nod their heads at and say, "Yes, I think that's so," in reality that's not the situation. When you look at the fact that the average municipal politician in this province probably makes somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 per year and does it on a part-time basis, certainly they are not the cost of running local municipalities. In most cases it's well below 0.001%. This whole notion that if we somehow got rid of local politicians we'd all be better off is something I totally reject.

The other thing that's part and parcel of this is the whole downloading of services on to local municipalities. I don't want to go over the whole situation again, but we all know that as a result of the suggested downloading changes the government made earlier this year, in effect an extra $1 billion was being downloaded on to the local property taxpayer. Let's never forget that. Yes, they were going to take over $5 billion worth of educational costs from the local property tax base, but about $6.4 billion was going to be added on.

Then, as a result of meetings that took place with AMO and other representatives and as a result of the human outcry that took place in the province, the government went back on some of the original proposals it had made. Where it wanted to download health services, social services, social housing costs, ambulance costs etc on to the local taxpayer, it sort of halved it.

The bottom line is, according to our calculations and according to AMO's calculations as well, that about $600 million more in costs are still being downloaded on to local municipalities by the province than is currently the case. So local property taxpayers are going to pay more if they want the same services.

The real pressure is going to be on those local municipal councils -- who obviously do not want to pass on a 10% or 20% property tax increase to their local ratepayers, which is totally understandable -- to cut out various services or increase property taxes next year. They're not going to want to increase the amount of taxation, so they're going to cut services. That is the bottom line in the whole thing.

The people of Ontario have to understand that social housing costs in this province, which amount to about $900 million, will be completely downloaded on to local municipalities. The real tragedy of this is that in many cases these costs have been incurred as a result of agreements for non-profit housing, co-op housing and other social housing where contracts were signed directly between the province and local organizations, local non-profit housing providers, where the municipality had absolutely no input. Yet those annual subsidy costs are now going to be passed down on to the local property taxpayer. That's just one major area.

Another area is the whole notion that health units are now going to be paid for completely out of local taxes. I know there's a tremendous concern within the health unit community as to exactly how that cost is going to be allocated among the many constituent municipalities that make up a health unit district or a health unit area. Nobody seems to know. The ministry doesn't seem to know; certainly the local health units don't seem to know.

New costs are going to be downloaded on to local communities as well. Ambulance services that have never, ever been part of the local municipal costs --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): A point of order, Speaker: There is absolutely no quorum in this House and I think you should check for that.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum?

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Marchese: Sorry about that, John.

Mr Gerretsen: No, that's quite all right. It's certainly too bad that on such an important bill as this, which the Minister of Labour would certainly attest to, as she is a representative from this area -- you would expect government members to be interested in this highly important matter of how we're going to restructure the region of Waterloo and you would expect them to be listening to some of this debate because they're very much interested in this bill.

You've got to remember that we were prepared to pass this bill a month ago so that the people and the politicians of Waterloo could get ready for the election in November. I've no idea why the government held it up, but they held it up for whatever reason, and then not to have a quorum in the House to actually debate the merits of this bill is somewhat unfortunate.

Let me conclude, and I am going to conclude. I'm not going to prolong this any more than we ought to talk about this. I think I'm quoting the minister correctly. He says, "Local taxpayers are paying too large a tax load currently, and one of the reasons we're into restructuring is so that they'll be paying less." He's saying it's right.

I ask him, why have you then downloaded so many other municipal services on to the local property tax base? You took education off, yes; that's $5.4 billion. But you originally tried to unload $6.4 billion on the local property taxpayer. Then you had these meetings with AMO, and I'm sure you and your parliamentary assistants were sweating quite a bit because AMO, which I think you and I will agree is an independent organization and doesn't adhere to any one political party, came up with figure after figure for each and every municipality that clearly showed that your plan was going to cost the local taxpayer more and more money.

In the city of Kingston it was going to be an extra $28 million and I believe in Waterloo it was going to be $32 million. It was going to be $105 million in one of the regions right in the Metro area. They caught you. Here you're saying you want to unburden the local taxpayer from too large a tax load they're currently paying, yet at the same time you were downloading $1 billion on to them, which would have meant an increase of about 10% to 20% in property taxes across the province.

You met with the municipal leaders and they said to you: "Minister, you can't do this. In 99% of the municipalities in Ontario the local taxpayers are going to be paying more and more money as a result of this. We have to come up with something else." You came up with something else and they were very happy, because now the downloading is no longer $1 billion but something like $665 million.

You know it and I know it, and I'm afraid that next year the property taxpayers around the province will know it as well, because the burden you have placed on local municipal councils is to do one of two things: They can either decrease services -- and I'm convinced in my own mind that's one of the things you're after -- or they can increase taxes.

Nobody likes to increase taxes. What's going to happen in all likelihood is that there's going to be a small property tax increase but there's going to be a large decrease in the kinds of services local municipalities are currently able to give to their local taxpayers.

We can argue about this all we want. We can start blaming the province or the local communities, and you can say this and I can say that, but the bottom line is this: Is the taxpayer better off in the long run in terms of the kinds of services they demand from their municipalities, and are they going to be paying more or less than they're currently paying? That's the bottom line. That's the only thing that really matters. Nothing else matters. They're not concerned about whether it's your fault or the municipality's fault or what have you. They want the services, and they want to pay as few property tax dollars as possible. That's what this is really all about.

I hope the people of Ontario will remember that this is the government that has downloaded an extra $600 million in costs on them; that this is the government that in effect is taking away much of the democratic voice they have in each of the local municipalities, whether they be municipal councillors who in many cases are no farther away than the next concession road right now or within the immediate neighbourhood these people happen to live in or whether we're talking about school boards.

Let's face it, what the whole amalgamation process in the school board area is really all about is to have fewer and fewer school trustees. Some people may say, "Well, that's a good idea," until they actually want to speak to somebody and try to influence a decision at the local council or school board. The school boards are going to be larger and larger. Then they might say, "My gosh, that councillor who used to be down the next concession line," or used to live three or four blocks over, may be miles away now, and, "Why can't I ever get hold of the person?" That person is going to be busier and busier.

As I mentioned before, in a place like Chatham-Kent, if you get rid of 90% of your elected local politicians, when you go from 141 local politicians in total down to 18, you are simply not going to get the same kind of service, you're not going to get the same kind of response and you're not going to have the ability to speak to your local representatives in the same way you do now.

By doing that, we're losing an awful lot, because the other result that's going to happen is that the few politicians that are going to be left at the local level are going to become more and more professional. They are not going to be part-time people. Many of these people are part-timers right now; they have a foot in the community and also in the political process, which I think is a good thing. They're going to be full-time politicians who will do almost anything to hang on to their job around election time. I don't think the system as a whole is better for it.

With that, I will simply say that we will be supporting this bill. We understand it has the support not only of the region but of all the area municipalities. I'm very pleased that in actual fact these people will know about four or five months in advance what system of government will be in place for t