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

September 24, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L235a - Wed 24 Sep 1997 / Mer 24 Sep 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CLASS SIZE

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

JULIE BROOKS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

CANCER PREVENTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

SENIORS SEMINAR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

VISITOR

HOME CARE

EDUCATION REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH CARDS

CROSS-BORDER TRAVEL / VOYAGES TRANSFRONTALIERS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TVONTARIO

HOME CARE

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

CHILD CARE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

PAY EQUITY

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COURT DECISION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND

LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

NURSING STAFF

WATER CHLORINATION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

UNIFORM FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'HARMONISATION DES LIGNES DIRECTRICES FÉDÉRALES ET PROVINCIALES SUR LES ALIMENTS POUR LES ENFANTS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): John Snobelen's new education legislation will not achieve what parents, students and teachers want and expect from this government. Rather than enhancing our system, all partners in education now agree that this bill and the minister's tactics will only lead to an inferior quality of education with inferior results for students.

Look at what has happened so far because of the cuts to education: 28 school boards have made cuts to special education; 25 have cancelled junior kindergarten; nine, library services; 50 have made cuts to transportation services; and 49 have cut elementary and secondary school staff. This has caused class sizes to grow to critical levels, and no, this legislation will neither protect nor reduce class sizes.

The minister and this document only pay lip-service to limiting class sizes. It doesn't give details and it doesn't give numbers. If the government were truly committed to protecting class sizes, it would call my bill, Bill 110, which not only protects class sizes but protects and enshrines a pupil's right to learn in a meaningful way in an appropriate class size.

There's no question about it: The government spin, the advertising, the PR gurus all have the right fluff, but the people of Ontario know that Shakespeare was right when he said, "All that glitters is not gold."

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This is day 3 of the North Bay Days of Action and the activity mounts. There are rallies being held, there are educational seminars; people are getting together and expressing their outrage at the actions of the Harris government.

There are a lot of letters of support coming to the organizers as well; for example, a letter to Lana Mitchell and Dawson Pratt, who are co-chairs of the North Bay Days of Action, from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. They indicate that many child care workers from the north will be coming to North Bay on the weekend and "demonstrating that there is real opposition to the Tory program.

The child care community will be there," they say in their own words, "because we are alarmed at the government moves to direct public funding to programs that don't provide for high-quality child care services/programs such as tax credits and deductions or vouchers for unlicensed/unregulated care. Implementing workfare will place children, already at risk due to poverty, in double jeopardy thanks to care provisions without even minimal health and safety standards."

While there will be many expressions of protest, there will also be some celebration: child care workers who will be celebrating the court decision that says the Harris government's attack on pay equity was unconstitutional; and of course the stunning retreat on Bill 136. As Dawson Pratt, one of the co-chairs, says, "Fighting back works."

"Our slogan is `Organize, Educate, Resist.' Our goal is `Take Back Ontario.' Ordinary people can achieve change when they stick together."

JULIE BROOKS

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): What do a collection of tents from the local Canadian Tire store and a love of the outdoors have in common? If you are a 20-year-old Sunderland woman, it resulted in her receiving the prestigious Gold Duke of Edinburgh Award. His Royal Highness Prince Philip presented Julie Brooks, who had already received the bronze and silver awards, with the Gold Duke of Edinburgh Award, Young Canadians Challenge, at a recent ceremony in Toronto.

Julie won the award for planning a five-day outdoor excursion which saw three canoes of participants paddling and portaging through five lakes in the Minden area. She had to acquire the food, ready the equipment, map out the route and lead the expedition.

Community service requirements are also prerequisite to qualifying for the award. Julie served as the 1994 Sunderland Ambassador of the Fair, taught Sunday school at St Andrew's United Church in Sunderland and performed with the school band.

Julie grew up in Sunderland, where she attended Sunderland public school and graduated from Brock high school in Cannington.

I congratulate Julie for her award-winning accomplishments and I wish her success as she attends her second year at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, where she is studying outdoor education.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Sound the bugles of retreat. The Conservative government of Mike Harris appears to be in complete disarray these days as it lurches from crisis to crisis, seemingly rudderless and having lost its nerve.

Instead of producing a compliant, acquiescent population with its bullying, intimidating tactics, the Harris regime has annoyed, antagonized and angered the people of Ontario. The very rich and the privileged may cheer on their man Mike, but the people on Main Street are beginning to see through the Nonsense Revolution, which seeks to confront and divide and to destroy the institutions and programs built with the sweat and struggle of so many in our province.

The Premier can huff and puff and bluster at what he calls the enemy of the people, but when his Conservative Party hits the skids in the polls, mighty Mike will run for cover and take John Snobelen and Elizabeth Witmer with him.

Those the Harris crowd sought to intimidate stood up to the bully and the bully has blinked. Panic has set into the nonsense revolutionaries as policies change weekly, daily or even hourly.

But the gentler, kinder, more accommodating image that Mike's public relations handlers are trying to portray will fool no one. It infuriates the angry, extremist right wing of the Conservative caucus and wins no converts among those who have seen the real Harris revolutionaries in action.

Listen for the beeping sound and get out of the way if you're behind the Harris truck. It's backing up in full retreat.

CANCER PREVENTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The Women's Network on Health and Environment is holding a public preview of the film Exposure: Environmental Links to Breast Cancer, to be held at 8 pm on Thursday, September 25, in the medical sciences auditorium at the University of Toronto. The preview will be followed by discussion. I urge all of those who are interested in prevention and treatment of breast cancer to go see that film because it makes the connections between environmental carcinogens and cancer.

I say to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment, it is now nearly 18 months since all parties in this Legislature voted to establish a committee to consider the banning or phasing out of carcinogenic substances as a step towards the primary prevention of cancer. I made that resolution, it was passed by this House and there's been absolutely no response from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment except to pass the buck. After two years in office and no action, cancer patients and their families have no confidence that either of you even understands what primary prevention of cancer is all about.

You have established Cancer Care Ontario, but we need to know that direction for prevention is set there and that you will refer the Report on the Primary Prevention of Cancer to the board of Cancer Care Ontario for consideration and action. I urge both ministers to take that into account.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition stood to question the Minister of Education. The leader used a constituent of mine as an example of a student suffering because of ministry cuts. The member knew his example was a local board of education decision. It was not connected to any policy or direction from the Ministry of Education.

It is from sheer frustration with local school staff and the board that these parents contacted the Leader of the Opposition. The parents, who live a few houses from the Wyevale school, have a real issue. Their concerns should have been resolved at the local level.

Under the amendments to the Education Act, parents will have greater say in their children's education and school policies. Bill 160, if passed, will give parents an opportunity to be more involved in the direction of education in their district. With the implementation of these changes, incidents such as this will not happen again.

I have spoken to the people at Wyevale. I understand their anger at the decision that the staff at the board of education have made. The Wyevale school board trustee is quoted as saying, "She was not privy to the decision, since it was an administrative decision, and the board of trustees was not consulted." It is the elected officials who are responsible to their constituents, not staff.

It is not cuts to education that are causing the problem; it is local decisions being made without consultation to those affected or those elected.

Tonight's meeting with the Simcoe County Board of Education I hope will resolve this matter, and the pupils will be in their proper school.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The Minister of Education is making up students' educational futures as he goes along. Wasn't it just yesterday that the minister was describing his new school year as one of the hallmarks of his educational reform? Today he is saying there won't be an extended year after all. How fast can this minister change his mind and how can anybody know what is coming next?

Parents have some very real concerns about what the Harris government has already done to education -- they are truly worried about what this Minister of Education wants to do -- and the only thing they know for sure is that the needs of their kids are not what is driving the agenda.

Parents have 10 top questions for John Snobelen that they want answered:

(10) Will you guarantee that capping class sizes will not mean losses elsewhere?

(9) Will all the boards in Ontario have junior kindergarten in September 1998?

(8) Are libraries, music programs, gym and special education part of the classroom as you define it?

(7) How much tax is business going to pay for education, and will their taxes be pooled?

(6) What are the specific powers and duties of school councils?

(5) How are you going to make it a law that schools have to have school councils, and what will you do to schools that can't manage it?

(4) Which positions are you going to designate as non-teaching positions?

(3) If education taxes stay in the community in which they're raised, how do you plan to guarantee equality?

(2) Can you guarantee that in cities such as Toronto and Ottawa there will not be massive cuts to public boards in order to make up for inequities between public and separate school funding?

(1) Question number one from parents: Can you guarantee that we will see a specific and detailed funding model by November 1?

Most of all they want the Minister of Education --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Let me say to the Minister of Environment and Energy that, contrary to his hope that things would die off in terms of further requests for a public inquiry into Plastimet, things continue to grow and pressure mounts.

On Saturday, the Hamilton Spectator said, in part:

"...this newspaper has called four times for an investigation. Today's instalment makes it five.... When it comes to the fire, the response to the fire, events leading up to and possibly contributing to the fire and the legacy of the fire, the Harris government's policy is clear: Deny, deny, deny. Given that, we can't promise you an end to Plastimet editorials. Something is really wrong here, and we just can't get past that."

Further: "Were the right measures taken at the right times in an effort to get Plastimet owners to correct fire code violations? If appropriate measures were taken, are fire code enforcement measures impotent? Does Ontario need new fire code regulations that would allow authorities to force quick compliance on people like the Plastimet owners? Did local police respond with the appropriate crowd control measures when the fire broke out? Did the local fire department respond appropriately with the right materials and strategy for dealing with this fire? Did the Ministry of the Environment respond appropriately? Should area residents have been evacuated sooner than they were?"

Yesterday the regional chairman and mayor of the city sent out a joint news release calling for a public inquiry to be held in the interest of our community and others. The regional municipality of Niagara has said they want one in the interest of their municipality and ours. We need a public inquiry into Plastimet.

SENIORS SEMINAR

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in a seniors seminar I sponsored on Friday afternoon, September 19, 1997, in the city of St Catharines. The seminar, partnered with Tabor Manor Mennonite Homes residents and staff, such as Rudy Siemens and Pam Pauls, was covered by Cogeco community television and attended by seniors from across the Niagara region.

The seniors heard about the benefits of the Ontario drug benefit plan with Gary Michaluk of the Ministry of Health; how to avoid scam artists, with Niagara Regional Police Detective Bob Glen; and the key components of the Ministry of Transportation seniors driver licensing program, with Steve Kivell of that ministry.

Without a doubt, this government is committed to seniors and safety, and certainly avenues for public awareness are important. In fact Detective Glen said that there had been fewer scams reported since he spoke at my last seminar on April 4, 1997, which was also televised. Certainly, seniors seminars are one way to promote that kind of awareness. Again, my thanks to all those involved.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 45th report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by this House.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Yesterday the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley) raised a point of privilege with respect to a Ministry of Education advertising campaign. The government House leader (Mr Johnson) and the third party House leader also made submissions with respect to this matter. The member for St Catharines argued that the ad campaign conveyed the impression that the passage of the Education Quality Improvement Act is a foregone conclusion.

I have reviewed the ad in question, and I must say that I cannot find within it any evidence that the phrase, "is implementing a plan," relates to any specific proceeding of this House. In fact the reference to a plan, in my view, leaves the impression that there are a number of components involved, some of which may certainly be legislation but not necessarily one particular bill.

My point is this: If the education bill introduced Monday does not pass, the government may still have in its plan to reduce class size by some other means. The terminology used in the ad does not rely upon any particular piece of legislation to project its message; indeed, it would still make sense to a listener even in the absence of the education bill.

In short, the more generic nature of this ad leads me to the conclusion that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Well, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, I may throw someone out today. I've been promising for a while, and I may fulfil that promise, member for Ottawa-Rideau.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. I understand he's just now making his way into the House.

Yesterday in this Legislature I raised the question with you of three Ottawa hospitals that were going to be closed two years before the necessary renovations were completed at a fourth Ottawa hospital, and that 23,000 patients would be left in the lurch as a result. You said something that came as tremendous news to us in the province of Ontario. You said "that if the physical space isn't available, then nobody will move anywhere." What you did was you told us that there is some flexibility attached to the dates on which hospitals are supposed to be closed.

I just wanted to confirm that for those three hospitals in Ottawa, and for that matter for hospitals everywhere in the province that have been set to close as a result of the work of your commission, there is now some flexibility attached to those dates of closure.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Until the commission says otherwise, they are their dates, they are their directions. They are bound in law. All of us are bound to those dates. There will be no change in the dates.

What I said in response to a hypothetical question yesterday, a ridiculous hypothetical question which was meant to scaremonger the people of Ottawa and the people of Ontario, that somehow all the common sense from all the administrators, doctors and nurses would be thrown out of the system, and that 24,000 people who rely on emergency rooms today would somehow be out on the street because the six new emergency rooms, in addition to the ones they have today, the more capacity for patients that's envisioned for Ottawa by the Health Services Restructuring Commission, that if that wasn't ready that people would be thrown out in the streets -- it's a ridiculous question, it's hypothetical and I'm surprised he's pursuing it again today.

Mr McGuinty: Yesterday you told us there was some flexibility attached to the dates on which hospitals are supposed to close. Do you know what happened yesterday? We should all understand this. Yesterday the minister slipped and for one moment he assumed some responsibility as the minister responsible for the health of patients in Ontario. Imagine that. It was a momentary lapse. He's proved that to us today. Perhaps he's fully recovered and is now assuming his role that he has assumed under the Harris government.

Wellesley is slated to close in March 1999. Is that date also flexible, Minister? Because that's what you said yesterday. You said that if the space wasn't there, if the supports weren't in place, then that date could be changed. Northwestern is slated to close very soon, November 3 of this year. There is a very real concern there as well about accommodation and supports. Is that date also flexible? Is there flexibility, yes or no?

Hon Mr Wilson: Under the law, the flexibility can only be exercised by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. I suggest the honourable member ask the commission that question.

Mr McGuinty: You can't have it both ways, and that's not in keeping with the story you delivered to us in this House yesterday. Yesterday you said -- I was taken aback because you were so reasonable -- that if the need should arise, if it's in the interests of Ontario patients, if the supports aren't there, if the renovations haven't been completed, then, "Yes, I will act to ensure that the hospitals don't close." That's what you said. I didn't say that.

What you said yesterday, Minister -- you should understand this -- was a good thing. I want to support you in that. What I want you to do now is to stand up and confirm that what you said yesterday is what you again believe in today, that there is some flexibility attached to hospital closure dates and we will do whatever is necessary to protect health care in Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, I've learned one thing in the last 24 hours, and the old adage that politicians shouldn't answer hypothetical ridiculous questions is something I shouldn't have done. The honourable member said, "If," -- and there was a big "if" -- "X, Y and Z happen." He's correct in his quote back to me, and we all have the Hansard. I said I'm sure the commission would exercise flexibility if there's no place for those patients to go.

What I want to know from the honourable member is, are you in favour of restructuring or not? That's what I want to know; that's what the voters of Ontario want to know. You're sitting on the fence. Yes, your cousins in Ottawa, the Liberals, cut us $2 billion. You've gotten away with absolute -- you should be disgraced on that one, but no, no, the voters decided to put the Liberals back in office in Ottawa. That's fine. We're coping with that. We're restructuring the system. We're making the system better for patients.

I don't know where you are in this equation, Mr McGuinty, and I won't give up till I find out where your party stands on hospital restructuring in this province.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I want to return to the case of Gordie Kirwan, because I believe that case to be very instructive in telling us something about you, where you're coming from and whether or not you have a genuine interest in the wellbeing of our students in Ontario.

You will recall that several months ago now I brought to this House the case of Gordie Kirwan, a young man who is 22 years of age, handsome, strapping, in perfect health but for the fact that he has the mind of a three-year-old. Gordie doesn't play with a football; he plays with his teddy bear.

His parents have delivered the message to you and I have as well. You promised that you would change the law in Ontario so that Gordie could continue his education, because as it stands right now, his parents are paying over $1,000 a month to allow their son to continue with his education.

Why should parents and students across the province believe you've got students' interests at heart if you're not even going to look after Gordie Kirwan?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I believe I answered this question for the Leader of the Opposition last week. I told the Leader of the Opposition that we had agreed, I have agreed, to compensate Gordie Kirwan's family for the costs of the program this year. We have done that. We've lived up to our obligation.

But the larger question is, and I pointed this out to the Leader of the Opposition, can we learn something from this case that will help other people, other young adults in the same circumstance across Ontario? I think the answer to that question is yes. We're working now in developing a policy that will help all the young people who are in that circumstance right across the province.

Mr McGuinty: I want to take issue once again with the minister when he says he has paid the tuition fees, because he has not. The other day in this House I produced the receipt issued to Gordie's mother showing she had paid over $1,000 for tuition fees for the month of September. She paid that, that's her hard-earned money and you should stop saying that you paid it.

We're not just talking about Gordie here; we're talking about the thousands of Gordies right across the province. Members should understand that it was over two years ago that Gordie's dad came across an unknown guy by the name of Mike Harris, then leader of the third party. He bought him a cup of coffee and he explained to him the problems they were having in getting education for their son. Mike Harris, then leader of the third party, said, "Don't worry, because if I become Premier I will fix this."

You've been in power over two years. They're still paying for the tuition fees. You've broken your promise to Gordie's parents, you've broken your promise to Gordie and you've broken the promise to thousands of others right across the province who are like Gordie. Minister, you tell us you're going to fix it. When are you going to do it?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The Leader of the Opposition, I believe, heard my reply just a few moments ago when I said that the ministry had agreed to, I had agreed to, compensate Gordie's parents for the cost of tuition, and we have done that. I pointed that out to the Leader of the Opposition last week.

I think the Leader of the Opposition in his question recognizes the fact that for some time governments, Liberal governments, NDP governments, have been petitioned to take care of adults over 21 who have some chance of education, using education services, and are precluded by the Education Act. We are taking that on. We're working very hard with my colleagues to get a policy and a program that will work. This is not a simple matter. Obviously, there are issues of integration versus segregation. There are different opinions on how this should be handled within the community. We are working to find a solution to this.

But let me say again to the Leader of the Opposition that we have made payment to the Kirwans and lived up to our obligation to them.

Mr McGuinty: I think this small snippet of the problems faced by one particular family, in terms of trying to have their son educated, is most instructive in terms of the approach this government brings to people in need generally. Gordie Kirwan may never pay taxes, he will likely never vote, and you have failed to live up to your responsibility to him.

The Premier made a promise over two years ago that if he became Premier he would fix this, he would make a change in the law. You personally have met with the Kirwans; you personally phoned Mrs Kirwan and said you would fix it. You said you would ensure that she wouldn't have to pay any money starting in September of this year. She's paid money; they've cashed her cheque. You told me that you sent her a cheque to reimburse her. I can tell you that as of today she has not received it. What I want to ask you once again is, when are you going to do something for Gordie and the thousands of others just like him right across this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me once again, for probably the fifth time in the last week, make this very clear to the Leader of the Opposition: Gordie is in school. We have agreed to compensate Gordie's family for the cost of being in school and we have issued payment. That is the status of this file.

If this reveals anything, it's that the Leader of the Opposition is willing to play politics with this kind of issue, just like he played politics yesterday by trying to inflame people across the province, by trying to inflame teachers across the province, by inferring that a

section of the bill that we put forward in this House would somehow ban strikes when he should know as a lawyer that it will not, when he should have got the legal opinion that it will not. He was clearly off base yesterday; he's clearly off base today. He should get his facts straight.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The opposition gallery has in it Mr Ross McClellan, a previous member for Bellwoods. Welcome.

HOME CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Health. You've cut $23 million from the operating budgets of hospitals in Hamilton. That's a figure that you and your officials have announced, and that takes into account a $7-million reinvestment that you announced. The $23-million cut means that Hamilton hospitals are being forced to discharge patients earlier than ever. In fact, they're being forced to discharge patients when those patients are still in need of care.

Some of that care will be provided by the homemakers program. But people in Hamilton are getting a letter -- and have gotten a letter -- from the Visiting Homemakers Association saying to them that the homemakers association has no more budget to provide them with needed homemaking services, that in fact homemaking services are being cut, they're simply not going to be available. How can you tell people on the one hand, while you're cutting hospital budgets, that they're going to get care in the community and care in their homes when they get a letter from the homemakers services saying there's no more care available?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'd appreciate if the honourable member would give me a copy of that letter. It's certainly contradictory to anything I've heard from Hamilton. I will personally check the association. We were there just a few weeks ago to announce millions of dollars for home care in Hamilton.

Secondly, I will say that it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Health, it is the responsibility of the hospitals, to make sure a plan is in place before they discharge people. It's not legal for them to discharge people without a care plan in place. If you have individual cases, I suggest you take those to the hospitals. They have a fiduciary responsibility to look after those patients.

More money is going into home care in Hamilton, so I'd be quite curious to find out what that letter says.

Mr Hampton: I'll quote to the minister from this letter:

"As many of you have already experienced, the hours provided to clients are being reduced, yet the number of short visits is increasing and the complexity of client care is greater....

"We know that the reduction in hours is being felt by clients.... Some clients are purchasing homemaking services to make up the difference in the hours dropped from public funding."

That's what the letter says, Minister. It says that homemakers can't provide the services that are needed and people who can't get the services any longer have to go out and buy them privately. This is called two-tier health care. You get a little bit from the public but then you have to spend more out of your own pocket. It's a lot like American health care: You purchase the services privately.

Minister, isn't that what's really happening? You cut the hospitals, you also limit the homemakers and people are put in the position where they have to spend money out of their own pocket to get private homemaker services. That's what's really happening, isn't it?

Hon Mr Wilson: The Hamilton-Wentworth home care budget has gone up from $23.5 million to $43.9 million, an 86.4% increase. They have more than their fair share of home care in the province. It's one of the highest per capita areas in the province. I will be personally looking into that letter from the home care association. It sounds like a bit of politics to me.

Yes, the community care access centre is reporting an expected deficit of $1.1 million. That isn't unusual. That's part of the ongoing process. We project at the beginning of the year. The local community tells us what their demand is, we give them the funding, and of course the funding's up dramatically over the last little while. My note indicates that staff are working every day with the people in Hamilton to address the demands. Their community care access centre is one of I think two in the province that isn't up and running, and Mr Jackson's trying to get that going. We've had some problems there.

It's not true that there's less money; there's clearly more money in Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, in the past it is quite true that you have covered deficits at the end, but let me quote from this letter again. The Visiting Homemakers Association "and all other service provider agencies, have recently received the disturbing news that the home care program must stay within its allocated budget from now on. In previous years, the Ministry of Health has provided additional funding to cover any deficit incurred during the year by the home care program. It will no longer do this."

The real issue here is you don't have a clue what's going on. You cut money from the hospitals, they have to put people out into the community earlier, the demand is increasing. Even your restructuring commission has made it very clear from its documents that they don't know what the demand is going to be as this keeps on going with people coming home earlier from hospitals as a result of the cuts.

You simply don't know what the demand is going to be and yet you have told homemaking services that they're not going to be able to build the deficits that they have been able to do in the past to ensure that people get cared for. This is not the hospitals' problem, Minister. This is your problem. When are you going to resolve it?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'll refer the last question to the Honourable Cam Jackson.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I want to acknowledge the member's supplementary question because she comes from a community, in London, where she has seen the successful model, as brought forward by this government, fully implemented to streamline the process, to bring in the accountability systems that were missing in home care in this province. This government brought that in two years ago, proper assessment criteria for patients.

The problem with the opposition members, especially the former government, is that they had five years to stabilize this environment and create stable criteria. This government believes that a person in London should get the same level of care as a person in Hamilton, Windsor or Ottawa. This government has brought in those criteria so that fairness and additional funding -- I remind the member there's 170 million new dollars going into long-term care and community-based supports in this province and Hamilton is getting its fair share.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education. I wonder if the Minister of Education can explain the confusing state that he has created.

A week ago he announced that children would be going back to school a week early. Not only did he announce it, but it was part of his propaganda piece. It was a story he spun on to The National, the CBC news, that night. Then we find out this week, in fact this morning, that students aren't going to be going back to school a week early after all. We're told that someone in the Ministry of Education did some arithmetic and figured out that if they sent students back to school a week early, it would cost some more money, and that would interfere with the $1 billion the government wants to take out of education. If you send kids back to school a week early, you can't get the full $1 billion.

I want to ask the minister this simple question, will students be going back to school a week early in 1998 or not?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): First, the leader of the third party has it wrong. We did receive a report a week and a half ago that made the recommendation that students go back to school the week before Labour Day. We received that recommendation along with others. I said then, and said today, that we support the thinking behind those recommendations. We did not adopt them all at that time, nor did we adopt that one.

I said today very quickly, because there are some concerns with parents -- particularly rural members have brought it to my attention, in the rural parts of Ontario -- that an earlier start to school would be a problem, so we moved today to say we will work with the school communities, we will work with our colleagues in the House of all political parties, to find a way to get the in-school time of students up to the level recommended by the EIC without having to expand the students' school year.

We will accept the recommendation of the EIC regarding teachers going back to school a week before the students, because we believe it's important to have them be ready for the students when they arrive at the beginning of the school year. That's what we announced today. It's in response to the requests we have heard from people from --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Education gets more confusing as days go on. Go into a school. Teachers are already in their schools before Labour Day. Everybody knows that. Your announcement was very specific: Students were going to be in the schools before Labour Day. You were going to add a week before Labour Day to the school year, but now you've done the arithmetic and you find out it doesn't work.

I want to ask you about your $1-million dollar propaganda campaign, because that seems to be a waste too. You're out spending $1 million on propaganda. I have been in touch with a number of schools: Robert Moore school in my community, which has to do fund-raising with students to pay for computers; Alexander MacKenzie, which has to do fund-raising with students to pay for playground equipment. Why don't you stick your $1-million propaganda campaign where it will do some good? Why don't you quit your campaign and give the moneys to the schools so they can buy the computers they need?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Speaker, you looked a little concerned.

The Speaker: I was just as worried as you were for a minute there, but it wasn't out of order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps the leader of the third party would like to read this document before he asks questions in the House. It's called The Road Ahead. It's from the Education Improvement Commission and it spells out their recommendations, one of which is that the province move to have teachers in school a full week before students arrive. We have adopted that.

We said this morning that we believe instructional time and time on tests for our students in the province can be increased without expanding the school calendar. The EIC reports to us they have recommended two thirds of that in their report. We think we can find the other third inside of that time. I have asked my colleagues to help me to consult with people to design just that.

Regarding our advertisements that have gone out, the mailout has gone out to every household in the province to tell them about a better education in Ontario. We think that's good information. If the leader of the third party is worried about costs, he might want to look at the full-colour brochure his government sent out to inform the people of Ontario. He might want to read the letter from the then Minister of Education, with the picture of the then Minister of Education and compare that with our --

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Quinte, come to order, please.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm referring to the backgrounder that he put out last week when he made his announcement. In that backgrounder on page 2 it says, "The Education Improvement Commission has recommended that the school year for elementary students be increased by two weeks and for secondary school students by three weeks," and then it says, "The legislation would allow the province to act on these recommendations."

It didn't say that the teachers would be in an extra week; it said the students. It also justified that on the basis of increasing the contact between teachers and students. Maybe the minister can explain how he increases the contact between teachers and students if he legislates that teachers go back, but not students.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I've got to say I'm not shocked at the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Speaker, I am surprised at the question from the member for Algoma, because the member for Algoma usually has read the reports and usually is briefed upon this subject, and he apparently is not.

The Education Improvement Commission suggested that we increase the amount of instructional time that students sit. They suggested two weeks for elementary school students; they suggested three weeks for secondary school students. We think it's a good idea. We think it will improve education. We think it will improve the students' performance. They suggested that we reduce the number of exam days allowed for secondary school students, the number of PA days that happen during the school year.

I can tell the member for Algoma that I was speaking with parents on Monday of this week and they suggested that if we had teachers come in the week before students, perhaps they wouldn't lose all the half days at the start of the year getting ready for the students, perhaps they could have more instructional time at the end of June, perhaps they could use the calendar better to find those five additional days. That would be preferable to parents than adding to the school year. I think those are good suggestions we've heard from parents, and we intend to listen to them and act on them.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to talk to you about the situation in London. We've heard there in recent days about a critical situation to do with ICU beds, and now general surgery beds are also a huge problem.

Today there was a story about a 70-year-old who went to London from Thunder Bay for heart surgery and he's experiencing something that I believe people are going to call the Harris hospital boomerang. He is recovering from heart surgery in London and the people there would like him to go back to Thunder Bay, but there are no beds in Thunder Bay for him to go back to because they are squeezed between two Harris hospital cuts. You took $55 million out of the hospitals in London in the last two years. You're going to take more beds away.

My question is, what will you do to help this 70-year-old stranded in London find a bed?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I spoke with Mr Tony Dagnone, the administrator of the hospital, about two hours ago on the phone. He said there's no basis for this story. Again, the Minister of Health is not responsible. You are to direct your questions to the hospital. You would have found out that the family went to the media because -- the hospital's not sure why the family went to the media. The woman in the story says they are getting excellent care.

The solution to the problem, though, if there is a problem, is that there will be more beds in Thunder Bay. There are new transitional beds. I haven't got the note in front of me now, but what the story points out -- and I can only go by the story at this point -- with respect to the alternative levels of care beds, it's a new type of bed the commission is recommending in communities like Thunder Bay, and some in London and Toronto and right across the province, called transitional beds, which will take the pressure off the acute care beds.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): There are no beds in Thunder Bay.

Hon Mr Wilson: "Bed blockers" is a term that came forward when the Liberals were in office in the 1980s. That was the problem. You did nothing about it, folks.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Fort William, you must withdraw that comment you made earlier.

Mrs McLeod: You mean about it not being true that there are beds in Thunder Bay, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Yes, that comment. You must withdraw it.

Mrs McLeod: I withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: There's a reason why this family had to go to the media, because there's no point, as you've just demonstrated, in going to the Minister of Health. When families are told that their loved ones have to leave hospitals and are told by those hospitals it's because of your cuts, because there are no beds available, they expect at least some response from you, Minister.

You've closed the chronic care hospital in Thunder Bay, you've put those beds into an acute care hospital. They don't have the space. They've got 60 people taking up those beds. Minister, is it your responsibility. You may say it isn't, but everybody in this House knows it's your job. It's your job to find this gentleman, 70 years old, a bed. It's your job to make sure there is something available for him.

Will you at least allow some funding to go back into Thunder Bay or into London so that this gentleman and others don't find themselves squeezed? Will you at least admit that the hospitals in London have been cancelling surgery, no ICU beds? They can't fit people in and now they can't even send people back. Will you at least admit there's a problem and that you will do something about it?

Hon Mr Wilson: Hospital restructuring is designed to correct exactly the situation the honourable member describes. There will be more of these transitional beds to get rid of the bed blockers that you did nothing about.

Second, the honourable member is completely misinformed about the role of the Minister of Health in this province and in this country. I can't micromanage the system. If there's a complaint, it must go to the hospital board, which is a group of citizens who have a responsibility for running that hospital. In this case and in every case, I would ask that you ask the hospital. Give these good people who have the responsibility for operating the hospital the opportunity to respond and solve the problems at the local level.

I cannot, no matter how hard you wish, direct one doctor to do one thing in this province. I cannot keep a patient in or discharge a patient. That is not under the law something the Minister of Health can do. Maybe you think you can, maybe you want to micromanage the system. I have faith in the doctors, I have faith in the nurses, I have faith in the administration that if --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members for Windsor-Sandwich and Ottawa West, come to order.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Throw him out.

The Speaker: Member for Grey-Owen Sound, it would be helpful if you came to order as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We will wait. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is getting a terrible reputation across the province of, first of all, not having --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: London is one of the best health care areas in Ontario. I would ask the honourable member to leave the chamber, go talk to the administration there and get his facts straight. Your own hospitals condemned you for not getting your facts straight. Now you've taken it upon yourself to upset the good people in London. The patient in question is getting good care. The patient was never in danger of being discharged without a plan in place.

I wish the honourable member would check his facts before he brings those cases. You brought a case to the Legislature earlier this week and you couldn't have been more wrong in that case. The fact of the matter is he does put me at a disadvantage. He takes advantage of the fact that the minister cannot talk about the details of a case. All I can do is ask you to please check your facts --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like you to rule on the word "bed blocker," whether that is a parliamentary word or not. I think he referred to patients as bed blockers. Is that a parliamentary word?

The Speaker: That's parliamentary. I would assume that's some technical term they use in the Ministry of Health. I don't know.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Holy smokes, don't start heckling me. That's just my opinion. I assume that is a technical term.

HEALTH CARDS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also to the Minister of Health. Yesterday you announced a series of measures that you're going to be taking to cut down on health care fraud. I think everyone in the province wants to be sure that our health dollars are used appropriately, that no one is taking advantage of the system.

My concern around your announcement was that you stated that as of January 1 the Ministry of Health will no longer allow health care providers to give the benefit of the doubt, and that only when people are clearly in an emergency situation would they get health care without a health card.

I wonder if you've really given much thought to this, because the fact is that the majority of people who present themselves in need of care without a health card prove in the course of things to be entitled to health care in Ontario.

There are many reasons why people don't have a health card. They may have had their ID stolen, including their health card, or when they want to apply for a health card they may not have access to their identification. They may be homeless and may not have belongings. They may be entitled, but for whatever reason don't have them.

Minister, can you tell us what you're going to do about these people?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The reports in the media were not meant to be taken exactly at face value in terms of --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: Common sense dictates that everyone in the province right now agrees with the honourable member and agrees with what I said yesterday, yes, but at the end of the day if you're ineligible. Yes, a lot of people don't have it on them. I don't have mine on me right now. But during my time in hospital, if that should happen, I would have the opportunity to present a valid card.

At the end of the day, though -- this isn't a change in law; this is just an enforcement of what the law has been right across this country under the Canada Health Act -- if you're not eligible, you're not eligible. You'll be swiping your Visa card and not your health card. But you'll be given ample opportunity to show that you are eligible for health benefits in Ontario.

Mrs Boyd: Then I'm not quite clear what the difference is. I guess my real concern is that's not exactly what's happening. Let me tell you the story of a 21-year-old woman who last spring presented herself at Doctors Hospital because she wasn't feeling well. She didn't have a health card, but she had lived in Ontario all her life. The hospital told her they'd treat her, but she needed to pay $25 down. She didn't have it, so she left.

The next day she was feeling worse. She went to the Toronto Western Hospital. She was told they would treat her, but she would be billed. She didn't have the money, so she left.

Two days later she was admitted as an emergency to the Wellesley Hospital because her fever was life-threatening. She occupied a bed there for four days. It turns out she had a urinary tract infection that could have been treated on the first day for very little cost, and it cost us all a great deal of money.

All I'm suggesting to you is that, first of all, we need to be setting up procedures that are consumer-friendly in terms of getting the health cards, and second of all, people aren't being turned away with minor conditions because they're being told they're going to be charged up front because they don't have a health card. How are we going to deal with these very expensive mistakes?

Hon Mr Wilson: The difference is, we're told -- and no government has the exact figure to what extent this is going on; we'll know better because of our new program -- many people apparently go through our system now and no one ever checks. They might mention the health card but they never follow up. They have to eventually have a valid health card. If there's any doubt at the point of service, they can ask for other ID. They can phone the Ministry of Health. There are a number of things that can be done. Again, emergency services must be covered, but they have to be true emergencies.

Yes, we are cracking down on fraud. We all know anecdotal stories of people coming from other countries and from other jurisdictions, where they haven't paid taxes here, they don't have eligibility here, and they're supposedly receiving health services. That's what we want cut down on, without, as the honourable member has pointed out, jeopardizing care and access for our own residents and those who are entitled to health benefits in Ontario.

CROSS-BORDER TRAVEL / VOYAGES TRANSFRONTALIERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is directed to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and it relates to the concern many people have raised in my riding regarding the proposed new immigration law that would require, under

section 110 of this new law, that all Canadians and foreigners would have to register both coming from and going into the United States and fill out additional visa information documents.

Exiger un visa aux Canadiens et aux Canadiennes qui veulent entrer aux États-Unis est non seulement contre une longue tradition mais remet aussi en question tout notre travail concernant le libre-échange.

Minister, I have a lot of companies and workers who are very concerned about this whole thing --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm very pleased to respond to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. It certainly is a big concern.

There's no doubt that if

section 110 of the new US immigration law was enacted, there would be long lineups and confusion at the borders. Such gridlocks would be bad for Ontario, not only for transportation and business, but for tourism as well.

More than 76 million trips -- and I want to emphasize that -- were made by Canadians to the United States last year. Ontario exported $116 billion worth of merchandise to the US last year. Our trade development strategy has increased our merchandise exports 6% in the first six months of this year. Clearly our tourism initiatives also have helped, because we attracted over 26 million Americans to Ontario in 1996.

Gridlocks at border crossings would discourage tourists on both sides of the border. Enacting this law would certainly be counterproductive at a time when we are trying to dismantle barriers to free trade.

Mr Hastings: If this law gets implemented unchanged, how will you provide for preventing an unmitigated disaster, Minister?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Saunderson: This is no laughing matter. This is a very serious matter that we should be considering. I'm happy to say that I have written to Mr Axworthy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa, expressing my concerns about this matter and asking him to please keep us informed of the developments. I've also spoken to Mr Gregory Johnson, the US consul general in Toronto, outlining the ramifications of such a law. He responded by saying that he took the issue very seriously and would be conveying my message and our concern to Washington.

I want to conclude by saying that my staff are in touch with federal officials in Ottawa and also in Washington to make sure we get a speedy resolution of this problem so that Ontarians and Canadians will not be concerned and our trade will not be interrupted, nor will our tourism be damaged.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Since your government has taken office, you have proceeded to cut a total of $56 million out of Hamilton-area hospitals, both in capital and operating costs, in the past two years.

Minister, there is a crisis in hospital care in the city of Hamilton and surrounding areas. We have examples. One gentleman suffered a stroke and was left for hours in a wheelchair in an emergency room without a doctor to see him, without a stretcher being available. That's under your jurisdiction. We had a woman who has a rare condition that needs treatment. Because of her condition, it takes her husband four hours to get her ready to go to the hospital for treatment. In the past three months on four occasions she got there and there was not a bed available. She was sent home.

We had a situation in the backyard of your minister of seniors where Joe Brant hospital had to convert a boardroom into an emergency waiting room.

You have created this crisis before your commission -- what are you going to do --

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

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Again, the honourable member is encouraged to discuss those individual cases with the hospital and the public hospital board there. I'd be interested to know what their response is. I encourage the honourable member to do that.

Mr Agostino: I have discussed these cases with the families, with the doctors and with the hospitals. In every single case they have said it is because of the cuts you have made to the health care system in Hamilton that people are sitting in wheelchairs without a stretcher being available, that this woman cannot get a bed. Every single case has been blamed on you and the cuts of your government, and this is before your thugs on the restructuring commission create havoc in Hamilton next month.

It's been estimated that as a result of the cuts that are being made there, as a result of what is happening in the districts around Hamilton, there will be at least 4,500 more patients from outside the city who are going to need services in Hamilton next year. Your commission is going to come in in about a month and close at least one Hamilton hospital.

Minister, you have a crisis in Ottawa, you have a crisis in Windsor, you have a crisis in Thunder Bay. You are going to create a crisis. Can you tell me what proactive action you're going to take to guarantee to the people of Hamilton that you're going to avert this crisis that is going to occur once your restructuring commission comes to town and decides that it's going to close our hospitals?

Hon Mr Wilson: So far the restructuring commission has been very positive in increasing services in every area of the province. The law is very clear that it can't cut services. The honourable member is making the case of the need to restructure. Obviously the status quo isn't good enough in Hamilton.

I was just in Hamilton last week and I was at probably the hospitals you're talking about, at least one of them, and certainly had no indication of what the honourable member's talking about. However, I do have indication from all of your hospitals in Hamilton that they would like to see the commission come in, that they realize the status quo isn't an option, that they would like the cooperation of their local MPPs.

They do not need the word "crisis" thrown around as they try and improve the health care system and increase services for a growing and aging population, something that your party failed to do, that should have been done 10, 15 years ago. It's unfortunate that it's happening in a short period of time, but we will have a better system with more services to serve more patients.

TVONTARIO

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture and communications. On September 11 and 12, Wawatay radio and Wahsa distance education stopped broadcasting to protest your government's intentions to privatize TVOntario. They wanted to let their listeners in the far north know what it would be like after you privatize TVOntario and they no longer have a carrier to help them put out their broadcasting signal. You see, they use the TVO satellite to broadcast education and information programs to 35 first nation communities in the remote far north.

Minister, in your drive, in your rush to sell off TVOntario, can you tell us what plans you have to ensure that Wawatay and Wahsa distance education continue to broadcast?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I refer that question to the minister responsible for privatization.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): The leader of the third party is well aware of the fact that a very important part of our privatization review framework is to take a look at the different options and alternatives that are available to bring in the private sector to help us manage the businesses government is involved in in a different and more effective way. Part of the process, of course, is to involve the public in some consultation. We think Ontarians have a role to play in this process and we intend to listen to what they say and respond to initiatives such as the one he just spoke to.

Mr Hampton: I asked a very specific question. These are two education and public information broadcasters that would go off the air. They are able to broadcast now because TVOntario includes them on TVOntario's satellite signal because they see it as part of TVOntario's mandate.

The reality is, if Wahsa distance education goes off the air, all kinds of people in those 35 remote first nation communities will not receive any educational programming in their own language. If Wawatay goes off the air, there will be no public information program in the Cree or Ojicree language.

I've asked a specific question and I still didn't get an answer. The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation doesn't know. Can the minister of privatization tell us? Have you any plans whatsoever to ensure that Wahsa distance education continues to broadcast and Wawatay radio continues to broadcast after you privatize TVO?

Hon Mr Sampson: I thought I did answer the member's question by saying that we believe all Ontarians have a role to play and some advice to provide as we assess the options and alternatives as they relate to TVO. Of course we'll listen to their concerns and their issues. That's why we have that very important part of our process, so that we can listen to what Ontarians say and have them help us assess the alternatives that are available to us to bring private sector to partner with government in providing a much better and more cost-effective service to Ontarians.

HOME CARE

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is directed to the minister responsible for seniors. You will be aware that I have a long-standing interest in and support of long-term care in the province of Ontario, particularly for Runnymede hospital. In light of some questions raised earlier today in the House and in response to last night on the CBC national newscast, home care was described as the future of health care in Canada. The reporter interviewed several patients who appreciated the opportunity to receive care outside of hospitals and nursing homes.

Governments across Canada are recognizing the value of home care. I would ask the minister if home care is a priority for the government and whether that priority is being backed up with the necessary funding.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I think members of this House would be pleased to know that Ontario is spending over $1.2 billion on home care, community-based supports, and a further over $1.2 billion on institutional-based care extended outside of a hospital setting for the frail elderly and the disabled in this province. We are spending record numbers of dollars to provide decent home care in this province and we have expanded it significantly in many parts of the province. It also forms part of a $170-million community-based funding increase this government has invested.

I have visited Runnymede with the honourable member. We have looked at the program and its impact, making sure that sufficient home care services are available, and I'm pleased to report that in the member's constituency area, funding for home care in Metro Toronto stands at $130 million today, and that's a $75 million dollars increase since --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Shea: My supplementary is also for the minister responsible for seniors. The National report addressed the related questions of how individuals can find out about home care available to them and fears that it might not be available. In spite of federal government cuts to our nation's health care system, can he assure the House that Ontario residents can get the services they need?

Hon Mr Jackson: We have increased substantively the amount of dollars to recognize growth. These are dollars that are being directly applied to the assessed needs in communities all across the province. There are some areas that are overserviced and moneys are going directly to communities. The member for St Catharines has had his community traditionally underserviced in this province. We've flowed additional dollars there. There are one or two communities that are overserviced and they're not getting additional dollars. They are expected to deliver the service fairly, equitably and efficiently as well.

I want to remind all members that in an Ontario where for 12 years not one new nursing home or long-term-care bed was approved by either the Liberal or NDP government, the system has problems we are addressing immediately by flowing these home care dollars into community settings to provide compassionate care and appropriate care. There are no waiting lists. There is demand, but there are no waiting lists within this province for home care at this time.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is for the Minister of Health, who has disappeared momentarily.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Put the question. He'll probably --

Interjection: Here he is.

The Speaker: Okay, go ahead.

Mr Cleary: My question is to the Minister of Health. It has been over a year and a half since you announced that you had chosen a provider for dialysis treatment in Cornwall, but you soon withdrew the deal when you got caught up in a legal battle. Now, 18 months later, you've dropped your appeal, so the court proceedings are over and so is the 30-day waiting period that you said you required, but you've failed to give a progress report.

At this point, Cornwall and area residents are uncertain if and when they might receive dialysis treatment. Hospital officials are asking what you are doing and if you are accepting proposals from all parties for space. I ask you for a full disclosure today on the Cornwall dialysis. Are there any outstanding issues? How many proposals are being considered? When do you think things will happen? And where do we go from here?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): If the honourable member would read the court's decision, he would know exactly what we're doing. It's a public document and he is welcome to read it. We are following the court's decision, which was to negotiate with Dr Posen. Dr Posen has made an arrangement to get rid of that American company that was so discredited by your party, which stopped the process. You've never explained that honestly to your constituents.

It was the member for Renfrew North and the member for Fort William --

The Speaker: I think that was unparliamentary. I would ask you to withdraw it.

Hon Mr Wilson: Speaker, I withdraw.

The way this went, a proper tender went out, a particular party won that tender, questions were raised in this House calling into question that tender and that put us into the court action. That's what happened. I haven't been free to this point to say because it has been tied up in court for over a year. So read your Hansard. That's the history.

Having said that, we're moving very positively in the future to do what the court directed, to negotiate with Dr Posen. Hopefully all that will get sorted out and new services will be up and running in Ottawa and Cornwall.

Mr Cleary: Minister, I can remember how frustrated you were when you were in opposition and you didn't have dialysis in your riding.

There have been 18 months of dithering around. After your announcement last spring, these people hoped they would be relieved of another winter's driving to Ottawa and Kingston. Please cut out the rhetoric today and tell the people of eastern Ontario that they won't have to drive again through these weather conditions. Instead, provide some comfort to these people by revealing today that the Cornwall dialysis facility will be treating patients this coming winter.

Hon Mr Wilson: That's certainly the intention. We were able to do that right across the province, with the exception of eastern Ontario because of the court case. Now that that has cleared, that is exactly what we're going to do. We have some 20 clinics up and running; they are already up and running. The proof is that the government's policy, my personal quest over the last seven years, I agree with the honourable member, has been very much fulfilled across the province.

Because of legal reasons we were unable to move in eastern Ontario until now, but I can assure the honourable member we're moving just as quickly as we possibly can, and we certainly are very much aware of the winter and the driving conditions your constituents would face, the same conditions my constituents faced, as you mentioned, and we will get you those services just as fast as we can.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question to the Attorney General. I want to return to the issue of the drivers' licence suspension project that we raised yesterday.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I need to hear these questions. I appreciate there are a lot of important meetings taking place as we speak, but I wish you'd come to order.

Ms Martel: Minister, on May 9 you said, "The testing of the suspension of drivers' licences will begin immediately to ensure a smooth and full implementation in September of 1997." Further in the press release you went on to say, "Other enforcement measures will be implemented later this year, including suspensions of drivers' licences, which is currently being tested." That was May 9.

Our information is quite different. Will you confirm in the House today that in fact you have not begun the drivers' licence suspension project at all and that when you do begin testing, you will only start with 100 drivers who are in default? Can you confirm that in the House today?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It's certainly our intention to begin the process of the enforcement measures to which the member refers. We've indicated we would do it in September, and it's going to happen in September.

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that's directed to the minister responsible for privatization, and it's in opposition to privatizing TVOntario. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, oppose any plans to privatize TVOntario and strongly support TVO's proposal to convert the agency to a not-for-profit corporation. We, the undersigned, strongly urge the government of Ontario to ensure continued access by Wahsa and Wawatay radio to TVO's distribution system. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize the excellent educational and information programming provided by TVOntario. The sale of TVO to commercial interests would also jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming, and Wahsa's distance education services, because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition that was brought to my attention by a constituent. I would like to read it, as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature of Ontario to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infants and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature,

"(

a) to pursue policy and funding initiatives that will support a full range of child care choices such as extending the child care tax credit to all families, including those providing full-time parental care; and

"(

b) to pursue discussions with the federal government to review the tax system to find ways to assist two-parent families where one parent chooses to remain at home."

I am pleased to add my name to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and other desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

Like hundreds of my fellow Windsorites I affix my signature to this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding the call for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry into the Hamilton Plastimet fire."

We're not backing away from this demand for one minute.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition from a small number of the residents of my riding of Peterborough expressing their concern with the change of services between the province and at the municipal level.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas there is no dialysis treatment currently available in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the lack of local medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa and Kingston, sometimes several times each week, even during dangerous winter weather conditions, to receive the basic medical attention, incurring unnecessary stress and cost; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas this promise made by the Minister of Health has, to date, not been kept, resulting in local patients and their families travelling to Ottawa and Kingston for treatment several times a week;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the Minister of Health follows through on his commitment made last April to set up a long-awaited dialysis and much-needed health service in the Cornwall area."

That's signed by residents from the Cornwall area.

PAY EQUITY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding pay equity in Bill 136:

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced Bill 136; and

"Whereas Bill 136 strips entitlements to employee status and therefore pay equity rights for home child care providers; and

"Whereas home child care providers are predominantly female; and

"Whereas home child care providers are one of the lowest-paid groups of workers in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136 and its implications for the Pay Equity Act."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition that's signed by 54 constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas communities strongly disagree with allowing women to go topless in public;

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

"To enact legislation to require women to wear tops in public places for the protection of our children and for public safety in general."

I sign this so it becomes a record of the assembly.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): This is a petition on secondary school reform in Ontario.

"Dear Minister:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is in the relationship between students and teachers and that this human and relational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. As the Minister of Education and Training, you should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary school reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and government.

"We strongly urge your ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding the review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper, Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here signed by eight Ontario residents relating to the recent Ontario court decision relating to toplessness in public. It expresses disapproval of that decision and it makes recommendations as to municipal bylaws and federal legislation to address the matter.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND

LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here that was submitted to me by Ted Loughead, the staff representative of OPSEU, Region 4, in Kingston and it deals with Bill 136. It is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas Bill 136, the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, will not meet its stated objective to facilitate collective bargaining in the event of mergers and amalgamations; and

"Further, if enacted, Bill 136 will interfere with collective bargaining, impose a new bureaucratic and dictatorial regime, remove the right to fair and impartial arbitration of disputes and the right to strike; and

"Whereas the Ontario Labour Relations Board has a long and successful history of mediating labour disputes;

"Therefore, in the interest of maintaining and enhancing quality public services provide by dedicated public employees, we hereby petition the Ontario government to withdraw its proposed Bill 136 legislation and support a fair and workable system that will not disrupt the supply of public services to the community or the livelihoods of thousands of Ontarians."

It's signed by approximately 40 individuals and I have signed my name to it as well, as I am in complete agreement with same.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from a number of people from the community of Timmins. It reads as follows:

"Please help us send a message to our government by signing our petition to stop the cuts to nursing staff in nursing homes. Hopefully this petition will make a better life for the sick people and the elderly people of our community.

"Sick people are not asking to be sick. People at nursing homes are in need of special care.

"There are many disadvantages with the cuts in nursing staff that are to be made in the future. Disabled people will end up suffering more because they will not be getting the care they should have. Lack of proper care could lead to depression in some patients.

"At this moment, nurses have difficulty to keep up with their duties because there are so many sick patients in nursing homes. With the proposed cuts, the nurses left working will get exhausted from rushing too much, which could lead to accidents. Furthermore, nurses will end up being on sick leave because of stress and pressure because of the lack of other nurses. Just think of how these cuts would affect your family in special need of care."

This is by one of the residents in the nursing home and it was signed by a number of family members, totalling around 500 people. I affix my signature to that petition.

WATER CHLORINATION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the chemical substance chlorine was added to the people of Milton's pure well water supply in 1995; and

"Whereas recent studies on the use of chlorine additives in drinking water have raised the spectre of chlorine as a possible cancer agent; and

"Whereas the people of the town of Milton overwhelmingly supported the belief that a standby chlorination requirement is sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat;

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

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government grant the people of Milton's request for a variance allowing only standby chlorination to be used in treating the pure well water supplies for Milton's water delivery system."

I'm in agreement with this and I will affix my signature to it, there being over 3,000 signatures now on these petitions.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government has failed to address the root causes of waste, duplication and unnecessary administration in our health care system; and

"Whereas the provincial government has instead introduced Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, that makes it easier for employers to reduce the number of front-line staff and to lower their salaries and benefits and thus causing further deterioration in quality patient care; and

"Whereas Bill 136 also erodes the democratic process by tampering with collective agreements and potentially interfering with workers' choice of bargaining agents;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, and restructure the health care system in a safe, coordinated and rational way."

I've added my name to that petition as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

UNIFORM FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'HARMONISATION DES LIGNES DIRECTRICES FÉDÉRALES ET PROVINCIALES SUR LES ALIMENTS POUR LES ENFANTS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Family Law Act to provide for child support guidelines and to promote uniformity between orders for the support of children under the Divorce Act (Canada) and orders for the support of children under the Family Law Act / Projet de loi 128, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le droit de la famille pour prévoir des lignes directrices sur les aliments pour les enfants et pour promouvoir l'harmonisation entre les ordonnances alimentaires au profit des enfants rendues en vertu de la

Loi sur le divorce (Canada) et celles rendues en vertu de la

Loi sur le droit de la famille.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Windsor-Sandwich, I believe you had the floor.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We are continuing debate on Bill 128. I had the opportunity last time they had called this bill to be speaking to it and ended the day, so I am pleased to finish with the last nine minutes of it.

Bill 128 has to do with custody and support. Our greatest difficulty with the government coming forward with a bill of this nature is that the government goes forward with making changes without understanding the very nature of what it has done to family support in Ontario so far.

We know in the Windsor area that they closed a regional office. Before they closed the regional office, we petitioned the Attorney General, who actually went to law school in Windsor, who knows the system in Windsor very well. We said to the minister, "Minister, the Windsor regional office is one of your most fruitful regional offices for family support. It makes the government money in the amount it costs to run the office versus the kind of support it's able to garner from parents who are paying support. It makes some $25 million a year, far in excess of other regional offices just by virtue of the kind of industry we have in the Windsor area."

They closed the regional office anyway and instead went forward with some kind of new-fangled system, never tested, never tried, which was a complete and utter disaster.

Now you want to come forward with Bill 128 and say, "We think we've got something that's going to help the system." Friends, this government couldn't handle the original system, couldn't make a simple change to mechanics without creating much concern and strife for many families across Ontario, let alone just those in Windsor and Essex county.

The difficulty of coming here today to say, "Yes, you may make changes in the law somewhere," without understanding that this very government cannot be trusted to implement change -- this government wants to be proud of bringing change to Ontarians. When you come from Windsor and Essex county, you see the kind of bulldozer, steamroller approach this government takes to change.

We have a hospital system in complete disarray because of that same mentality that you bring to bear in every ministry this government operates. The Minister of Health stands on his feet today and says: "I'm not responsible. I'm not in charge. I can't tell them all what to do." People of Ontario need to understand the Ontario government funds, and because they fund they also make people obliged to acts --

Interjection.

Mrs Pupatello: -- like the hospital act. This member from Sarnia wants to yell out.

Let's talk to the people from Lambton. They saw exactly what happened after a steamroller, bulldozer approach in Lambton. In fact, all the galleries here were full of people from this member's riding because they knew his government was not listening. They were not listening to the very people who saw change coming to Lambton, that the hospitals were going to be closed with no input, that they weren't going to be told where their services were going to come from.

Yesterday, my office in Windsor received frantic phone calls from the emergency services in Windsor. They called our office to say: "We need help. Somebody has to help us. We have a furious doctor running the emergency there, saying, `I can't go into the waiting room to bring a patient into emergency to treat because I have nowhere to put the patient.'" These people are angry because those who are already in emergency don't have a bed to be sent to in the hospital because the hospital beds are all full of people who have to move into long-term-care beds which aren't there.

You think you are making change. I'm telling you that you're destroying any kind of confidence we could have in your hospital system, and believe me, you are going to own this one.

Today in the House the minister referred to these as "bed blockers." When you come from Windsor, these patients are not bed blockers. He may refer to them in that abstract manner because it's easier for him to deal with things that aren't real. Well, what we hear about are things that are real. These are patients who are being sent home, and in the end the patients --

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I've been sitting here listening and I have Bill 128 in my hand. I don't see anything about beds, I don't see anything about hospitals and I don't see anything about that.

The Acting Speaker: I get your point of order. Thank you. Take your seat. Member for Windsor-Sandwich, he does have a point. You must speak, under the rules, to Bill 128.

Mrs Pupatello: When we talk about Bill 128, we are talking about the kind of change this government wants to bring to bear to Ontarians. What you need to do before you change the law is make sure you have systems in place to deal with the law. This Attorney General should have lost his job months ago with the fiasco he created with family support, where people are losing their homes because they couldn't pay their mortgages because you decided to change the system. You decided to close regional offices but you didn't have a system in place.

Your government uses the same pattern in every ministry, and that is exactly the relationship of the Windsor hospital situation and this Bill 128. You forced the closure of emergency care out of Windsor Western on the west side of town with no expansion done at the other two sites.

Yesterday three ambulances waited at emergency at Hotel-Dieu Grace for an hour. They couldn't leave the hospital because a patient was still on a stretcher in the emergency with no bed to move the patient on to. That is the same pattern that is brought to bear with Bill 128 --

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Again, I believe the member for Windsor-Sandwich is wandering. She's not talking to the point. The bill is before us.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, please try and stay on Bill 128.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker. You'll understand that the pattern being set -- when you make changes in one place you need to ensure that the environment is ready to make changes. Therefore, you don't close the regional office of family support before your computer system is working, so that you've tested it and tried it. Similarly, you do not close an emergency ward before the other two sites are expanded with sufficient beds, with enough bays for ambulances to pull into. That is exactly the connection. This pattern is the same.

You insist on making changes before you've prepared any groundwork out there -- a steamroller, bulldozer approach to your government. What do we get instead? We get this kind of affiliation for patients: He wants to call them "bed blockers." These patients from Windsor are not bed blockers. The people that are sent home from emergency, only to die at home, are not bed blockers. These are people who pay taxes. The people with family support who can't pay their mortgage payment, what are they? Are they government blockers somehow?

These are individuals who get family support and they should be able to pay a mortgage payment with money that is truly theirs. Instead, you close the regional office, there is no system in place for these people, and Bill 128 somehow is going to cure that.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I'm just happy to remind you, and perhaps through you the member for Windsor-Sandwich, that we are still on Bill 128.

Mrs Pupatello: When we arrive and when we have an issue that you cannot turn around and say does not exist, you'll continue to interrupt me because you don't want my point to get out there. That's what is happening in this House today. It's going to take an awful lot of that to try to stop me in this House, let me tell you.

We have an emergency report called for by the Minister of Health himself. It itemizes clearly that conditions are unsafe, undignified, that appropriate care is not being delivered in Windsor area hospitals. It is his report that he called for, that he must own up to, but today he chooses to stand and say: "I'm not responsible. It's not me. I haven't got anything I can do about that." If that's the case, give up the limo, give up the cheque, go back to being a backbencher and put somebody in charge who can bloody well do this job, because he's dealing with families, and when you come from Windsor it makes a difference.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I am pleased to be able to respond to the speech made by the member from Windsor. I think she was quite good at demonstrating the links that exist between this bill and the context of everything else that this government is doing.

I think it was a superb job of demonstrating that you cannot look at this particular bill, Bill 128, without the context of looking at what the government's doing when it comes to children with hospitals; when it comes to what the government is doing around the family support plan; when it comes to what the government has done with welfare cuts; when it comes to what the government has done with the cuts to day care; when it comes to what the government has done when it comes to social housing; when it comes to the all-out attack that this government has made on working families and the children of this province over the last two and a half years.

As I say, I think the member for Windsor-Sandwich showed that there are links between Bill 128 and what this government is doing. I think she did a good job of showing those links. On the other issue that she spoke to, in regard to the family support plan, again the government gets nervous. They all stood up and said, "Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The member is talking about FSP and is not talking about Bill 128." The members of the government are nervous. They don't like it when members of the opposition, or even be it the public through the committee process, come to them and hold them to task on their decisions.

The reality is that you guys have messed up big time. The family support plan has never been in the disastrous state that it is in now, since Charles Harnick, the now Attorney General of the province of Ontario, has come to power and has made it a mess. He shut down the regional offices. They took all the files, they put them in boxes, then they shipped them off to Downsview, and nobody knew where they were. Meanwhile, support order changes and all kinds of things that needed to be dealt with weren't, and people who used to pay and never had a problem getting money to their spouses were being all messed up. Who's getting hurt? Again, it's the kids.

I congratulate the member. I think she demonstrated that this government, when it comes to children, has no record to be proud of.

Mr Parker: I listened with great interest to the comments opposite. Frankly, I thought I'd made an error in reading the order paper and I'd stumbled in on the wrong debate, because the subject we were here to discuss is Bill 128, which is a child support bill. What that has to do with the tale we were being told about hospitals in Windsor is beyond me.

If we had been hearing a discussion about child support, we might have heard about the disaster that was left to this government by the previous government, with the boxes upon boxes with the dust already thick on those boxes of child support claims that were sitting in those regional offices throughout the province receiving no attention whatsoever.

We would have been hearing about the countless phone calls that went totally unanswered, let alone answered and not responded to, by the previous government, and the mess, the Augean stables that this government has had to clean out in dealing with the mess that was left behind by the so-called family assistance plan left by the previous government, and what we are trying to do now to try to get out from under that.

There will be reason to cheer in the weeks ahead as the backlog left to us by the previous government is dealt with and we can get on with dealing with cases as they are currently being brought forward. Phone calls are being answered. Phone calls are being returned. Action is taking place, not something that's totally unknown in this province -- it was unknown until this government took office. It's taking a while to get through the backlog that we were left with, yes, that's true, but we're just about through the backlog and we're on top of the current cases.

If the member for Windsor-Sandwich had been discussing Bill 128, we might have heard a little bit about the child support guidelines that are brought forward in Bill 128. We might have heard something about how Bill 128 will ensure the public has adequate information to make decisions on how best to proceed with their child support claims.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was delighted to see the member tie in this bill with the entire government program, because that's what you have to do. You can't speak only about the bill in isolation. She was worried. She thought the government had sounded the bugles of retreat. The government appears to be in full panic the last couple of weeks. They're going from crisis to crisis, many of which they created themselves, and that's what she pointed out.

I was as astounded as she -- she mentioned this in her speech -- when the Minister of Health today referred to patients in hospital beds as bed blockers. I can't believe that. That demonstrates the bureaucratic, unfeeling approach that the government is taking to health care. The member wanted to mention that, and I don't blame her for mentioning that.

As well, she would recall that the Premier said a while ago that nurses were like hula hoops. He compared them to hula hoops. He said, "Hula hoops went out of style; people had to do something different," and he said that's what nurses would have to do. I know the nurses haven't forgiven the government for that, and I think the patients, when they hear that they are referred to as bed blockers, are going to be equally concerned. I'm glad the member mentioned that.

Several times government members, who are feeling very edgy today -- they see the government diving in the polls, they see the government doing very poorly in by-elections, so they're starting to worry. They're running for cover now. So every time somebody mentions something that appears to be a little bit off topic when there's a bill before the House, the government members are up protesting. I am responding, of course, to what the member has had to say. I worry about that, because I know, for instance, that the government members tend to --

Mr Martiniuk: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: It had better be good.

Mr Martiniuk: Yes, it is good, Madam Speaker. Again, the Liberal Party seems to be wandering all over the place. The member for St Catharines knows the rules of this House, and he is ignoring them. The point --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Member, take your seat. I get your point.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I want order, please. The members are giving their two-minute responses to the previous speaker, and they are allowed to say what they choose to say in response to that speech. Go ahead.

Mr Bradley: The member for Cambridge, the government member, has made my point just now. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and comments?

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It's quite obvious that there is a lot of nervousness in this Legislature among the Conservative backbenchers as they go home for the weekend and hear all the commotion that is going on, and people are unhappy. They attack the comments that the member for Windsor-Sandwich is making on Bill 128. If you are going to have a discussion in this Legislature on Bill 128, surely you have to bring in all the mistakes that the Minister of Education has made as he has been trying to restructure the education system. One week he is saying one thing and another week he is saying another thing.

The Minister of Health is talking about patients who are in beds being bed blockers. You talk about a slap in the face -- somebody is going in for surgery and spends time in hospital, and then you get the Minister of Health making comments of this kind.

The Minister of Education is saying, "I didn't mean that the students were going to have to go back one week earlier, a week before Labour Day; I meant that the teachers are going to have to go back one week before Labour Day." They've been doing that for the last 30 years. The Minister of Education doesn't even understand that the teachers have been going back one week or two weeks earlier, before September, to prepare their classes for the new year. All of a sudden the Minister of Education is saying: "There is some confusion out there.

What I meant to say was it's an attack on teachers, it's not on students," and he doesn't understand the whole system. I understand it, as a lot of people from northern Ontario do.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich has explained fully that this government has no caring about women and children. The first thing they did when they came into government was to cut 21% or 22% of the money that they need for food, lodging and to pay the hydroelectricity. The most vulnerable people in society were given a slap on the face by this government, and they are continuing to do it over the last two and a half years. It's just one slap after another. I congratulate the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, you can sum up.

Mrs Pupatello: One of these days, the MPPs from all over Ontario are going to understand what has happened to the health care system in Windsor, because it's coming to a community near you. The pace of change and the pattern is so completely backwards. Just like it is with family support, so it is with health care, and you will understand when it's in your backyard and when it's your constituents who are being affected like mine are.

So every one of you who wants to heckle and interrupt is going to learn sooner rather than later that your health minister wants not to be responsible, but he is, and you have a responsibility as a provincial government to provide the right level of funding for quality care in this province.

Because our community was ahead of the game, we have spent millions of dollars never to be reimbursed by that ministry. Your Premier doesn't have the gall or the nerve to come into my community, other than at the airport and barely stepping off the curb during an election campaign, to even come and see for himself what kind of situation we have in Windsor.

Any one of you who wants to question the credibility of the issues, I invite you personally to come to my riding. I will personally give you a tour. I will introduce you to Conservatives who are helping me with this fight, because this is not about what party you belong to; this is about what kind of health care we get.

Some of your members already know this, because several of your members voted in favour of my private member's bill to completely abolish the health commission that is causing the destruction at the behest of the Premier of Ontario. You cannot get away with this kind of thing without hurting people. This will come home to roost -- it will take us time to get this message out -- because eventually this is coming to your own backyard. Unfortunately, Windsor was first. We are the canary in the coal mine here. Everything that you are doing today is not allowing us to go forward with good, positive health care in the Windsor community, and you will learn this.

The Acting Speaker: Before we continue with debate, I want to say two things to the members. Number one, I want to remind the members that you are supposed to, under the rules, stick to generally -- you all know we're fairly lenient here -- the contents of the bill, which is Bill 128 today. Number two, I want to say to members that you have the right at any time to stand up on a point of order, and I appreciate that, but I would also appreciate that the members show respect for each other and not stand up on two-minute rebuttals unless you're absolutely clear. Use your common sense, if I may say so, and make sure --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Seriously, show some respect for each other, because when you interrupt somebody in a two-minute rebuttal, you realize that they lose most of their time. Of course I will take your point of order, but I would ask all members to please think carefully and make sure that your point of order is legitimate and fair. Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): It gives me pleasure to be able to join in this debate on Bill 128 that is dealing with family support. I'll try and keep on the important highlights of family support, because this is an issue that I heard about during the campaign leading up to September 4, but I can tell members in the House that I heard about a lot of other concerns from voters in Windsor-Riverside as well. Many people were saying that this government was moving too far, too fast, and they were concerned --

Interjection: And in the wrong direction.

Mr Lessard: And in the wrong direction as well. They were concerned because they were seeing a crisis in emergency care in the hospitals in our community. They saw the prospect of closing parts of hospitals in the community without changes being made to adequately address those closures. They were seeing a health care system in crisis in the Windsor area and they had a great deal of concern about that. The member for Windsor-Sandwich touched on that during her remarks as well.

It's really difficult to try and speak just about family support as an issue I heard during the campaign without really considering everything about this government's agenda over the last two years. All these things fit together.

As this government was moving ahead with its agenda, something else I heard during the campaign that people were concerned about was the fact that the health care cuts were affecting our community, cuts to education were affecting our community and cuts to environmental protection were affecting our community. We had a very effective regional office in Windsor that was protecting the environment, that was out investigating spills, that was making sure our drinking water was safe to drink.

That's an office that has been cut in half over the last year and a half as far as staff are concerned, since this government got elected in 1995. That was something that people were concerned about as well and told me about during the election.

Family support did come up, because there were many people in my riding who were concerned about the closure of the regional family support office in Windsor and the impact that was having, especially on women and children who were unable to get the support they needed to survive. We're talking mostly about support that was due to children to provide clothing, to provide housing and to provide food. They were having problems getting the support payments that were being made to the family support plan by their spouses. Those payments weren't getting to the people who needed that money to survive.

In this government's expediency in moving too far, too fast and in the wrong direction, in closing hospitals, in cutting health care, in cutting protection to the environment and downloading responsibilities on to municipalities, there are certain things this government overlooked. I know some of the members opposite are going to say: "You're complaining about the government moving too far, too fast. Here's a bill we should be moving faster on." Everybody agrees this is a bill that should have been passed last May actually, or even before, because this bill deals with uniformity of support orders between federal and provincial legislation.

Before coming to this place on September 4, I was a lawyer in private practice -- not a family law lawyer, but I had occasion to deal with family law cases. I know these federal support guidelines were introduced well over a year ago. The proposals for the legislation for the federal support guidelines were suggested well over a year ago. They've been subject to debate in the House of Commons, they've been subject to debate among lawyers and people in the legal profession. They make a lot of sense.

They take out a lot of the arguing and the bickering between spouses that say, "I should be receiving a certain level of support for a whole number of different issues." The federal guidelines say that if your income is a certain amount and this is the number of children you have, then this is the amount of support you should pay. That's something that makes sense.

Frankly, I think most people would fail to understand why it has taken this government so long to bring in and implement legislation that falls along the side of the federal guidelines, given the amount of time they've taken to put those federal guidelines into place. This is legislation that mirrors those federal guidelines.

For many people the distinction is very difficult to understand, but just to give some explanation to people who may be watching this, when it comes to couples who are legally married, in order to end that relationship they have to get a divorce. Divorces are done through courts and through the federal legislation. That, of course, is the process under which a judge will set the amount of support, if any, that is going to be paid by one spouse to the other or children.

There's also a great number of people who don't fall within the jurisdiction of the federal divorce legislation because they haven't been legally married. They may be living in common-law relationships; they may be living in relationships where they have children but they haven't gotten married. Those people who break up obviously have an obligation to support their children and this legislation recognizes that. I think it's important that it does acknowledge that every parent of a child continues to have an obligation to support that child. It's important that we remind people of the obligation they have.

How is that obligation enforced if it's not an action that takes place in divorce court but actually takes place in provincial court? That's something we need to look at. In Windsor we had a regional office that was providing for the effective enforcement of support orders that had been made in provincial court. We've seen that office closed since this government was elected in 1995, and people who never had any problem getting their support after 1990 started to have all kinds of problems after 1995, when that office was closed.

I brought up a case just the other day during question period that wasn't really just a problem with enforcement. There are a great number of other problems that we're having. We've heard from a number of people who have said: "I spoke to my spouse. They said that they paid the money to the family support plan. They paid it on time, but we don't have the money. It never got to us. We don't have any money for groceries or to pay the rent. What are we supposed to do?" Of course, they can't pay them directly. They have to pay through the family support plan.

They're in a lot of trouble, a lot of difficulty, if they don't get that money after it's been paid by the payor. You really have to wonder what's happening with all that money.

The case I brought up the other day, of Sharon Stockford, was a case where she wasn't having a problem getting the money that was owed to her; the problem was that her circumstances changed. She had a child who had moved out of the house and therefore wasn't really entitled to the level of support that she has actually been getting. What she wanted to do was simply to get in touch with somebody from this government and say: "This support order needs to be changed. You're collecting too much money and you're giving me too much money, and it needs to be changed." She wasn't able to get in touch with anybody.

She's tried to call the 800 number; there's no answer. She's tried to write a letter; there's no response. She sends faxes; there's no response. It's a simple thing to get that order changed, you would think. All she had to do was find somebody in this government who was going to be able to listen to her and make some change, and she wasn't able to do that.

She called our office and we tried to do the same thing. We try to call the 800 number. We don't get any response either.

In August -- this was before the election, but I can tell you that we were working on many of these cases during the election as well. We had people who were working on the election campaign doing case work. For a while, there was an 800 number and there was a person you could actually speak to at the other end. But now when you call that number, it just goes right to voice mail. There's nobody there to answer the phone any more. You leave a message on voice mail; there's never any response.

This is just another example of the incompetence of this government and the Attorney General as well. That's something we need to take into consideration when we're talking about passing this legislation to unify --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Come on, member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Lessard: -- orders for support under the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act as well.

The Attorney General had the gall to say to me in response to my question that he had called my constituency office and the phones were disconnected or something like that. It's not my phones that are disconnected, it's the Attorney General's phones that are disconnected. There's nobody there to answer the Attorney General's phones. There's nobody there at the family support plan to answer the phones. We haven't had any problem with our telephones, Madam Speaker. I just want to assure you of that because that's something that does come within the jurisdiction of the Speaker's office.

I can assure you that we haven't got any problem with our telephones. Anybody who calls our office gets someone to answer the phone and gets a response to their questions, and that's the way it should be.

Mr Bisson: Except at the family support plan office.

Mr Lessard: At the family support plan they don't get that kind of service, and everybody who's called there knows that.

One of the things that does concern me about this legislation, Bill 128, is the fact that everybody thinks it's already passed. There have been advertising campaigns with respect to the federal guidelines, and anybody who's got a support order that's been made or who's been through provincial court already thinks that this is the law here in Ontario. They don't realize that this government hasn't gotten around to passing laws that affect provincial court orders up until this time and they're going to start making applications to the courts for variations of these existing orders.

What's going to happen when thousands of people make application at the same time for variations of their support orders? It really makes me wonder what impact that's going to have on our legal system, a legal system that is currently suffering under a burden of not enough people working in the courthouse, not enough courtrooms.

There are difficulties in the registrar's office in the courthouse in Windsor, I can tell you. If people want to make an application to vary their support order, they have to go and take one of those tickets off the doorway, like you get at the meat or the deli counter that tells you what number it is that you have to make your application at, and there are often times when you're going to spend at least two or three hours waiting in that line to file your application to get a variation to your support order.

What we really need is some streamlining of the system so that every time a person's financial circumstances change, for example, if a person who is paying support loses their job -- and we know that if you're working in the government of Ontario there's a higher prospect that you're going to be losing your job since this government got elected in 1995. But if you lose your job and your income changes and you therefore want to get your support order varied, there isn't a simple system to enable you to do that. It's unfortunate that isn't something that is provided for in this legislation.

Something else that isn't provided for in this legislation is indexing if inflation goes up, for example. There isn't any automatic provision in this legislation to increase those support orders. That's another case where if inflation rises rapidly again, which I hope we don't see, people will then also be faced with the prospect of having to make an application for variation and to go through the court system.

You know that oftentimes people who are applying for variations because they've lost their jobs don't have the income to pay for a lawyer. They don't have the financial means to do that. The first thing that people do is go down to the legal aid office and say: "I lost my job. I can't continue to pay the support that I owe. Can I get a certificate to provide me with a legal aid la