Hansard Transcript 1998-Apr-30 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Bill 4, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the drivers' licences of certain school pupils / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne le permis de conduire de certains élèves.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'm very proud to be putting forward this amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. I am putting it forward for a number of reasons, one of which is not contained within the amendment itself but rather how the amendment was proposed, how it was developed. It was a concept which I can't take credit for. It's a concept that was a direct result of a parents' council meeting held in a high school in my area. It's an inner-city school. It is populated by 64, I believe, different nationalities speaking 41 different languages. It's Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute.

The suggestion originated in the form of a question. It was, if you will recall, the dispute, the concern surrounding Bill 160. It was a suggestion which originated in the form of a question along the lines of what our government would do to help keep students in the classroom. It was a good question: "What is the government going to do to help educators in the province who in many schools face truancy rates of up to 20%?"

The truancy rates, as a result of the research that I've done into various states and provinces in North America, have a direct relationship to the violence that we face in our communities today. It has a direct relationship to the drugs that we face in our communities today - drug use, drug pushing. It has a direct relationship to poor driving. It has a direct relationship to underage liquor use. It has a direct relationship to juvenile delinquency.

I didn't have an immediate answer to that question, but I responded that I would be willing to look into it.

This amendment directly links the ability of students to obtain and maintain a driver's licence. The suggestion came from the principal of Cameron Heights Collegiate, Mr Dick Beresford.

Since that parents' council meeting, I took part in a number of other meetings to discuss the proposal, meetings with students, meetings with educators, meetings with parents who have no relationship to parents' councils.

I would like to direct the members' attention to the gallery, to some members from Cameron Heights Collegiate who came here today: Mr Harry Vanderzand, the chairman of the parents' council of Cameron Heights Collegiate; Mr Doug Simpson of the Cameron Heights special education department. I have three students: Aaron Wudrick, Thomas Campbell and Stephanie Schott. I want to express my thanks to these individuals and to the principal of Cameron Heights Collegiate, Dick Beresford, for their contributions made.

The amendment is simple but it's effective. The government has taken the position that students should be spending more time in the classroom with their teachers, and this amendment provides one method of accomplishing this.

What is appealing about the amendment - again, as I have read in the research I did pertaining to other states and provinces - is that this is not a penalty. This is a motivational tool, the carrot before the stick; the stick if necessary but not necessarily the stick.

Members of this House can reflect back on the days when they were in school and looked forward with eager anticipation to the time when they would qualify to get their driver's licences, particularly the men because as boys we considered that obtaining a driver's licence was one of the methods of passage into manhood.

Members can remember the tremendous sense of pride we experienced when we passed our drivers' tests and when we were able to drive a car for the first time. It is with this same sense of anticipation that today's student looks forward to obtaining a driver's licence. It is with this same sense of pride of accomplishment that today's student passes his or her driver's test and obtains the licence to drive.

To many students, obtaining a driver's licence is at least as important as actually graduating. Surprise, right? It is because of the high value young people place on obtaining a driver's licence that this amendment has the potential to become a very valuable tool in rewarding positive behaviour. Few students will want to jeopardize their opportunity to obtain or maintain their licence. The amendment, in its simplicity, provides every parent in the province with a valuable tool, a tool the parents can use to encourage their young teenagers to go to school and attend classes.

Imagine a young man showing up at the door for a date. I, as the father, notice that the young man shows up without wheels. I want to know why he has shown up without wheels. Is he going to walk downtown with my daughter? Is he a bad student? Has he been involved in drugs or some other crime? Why does he not have wheels?

The amendment provides a valuable tool for educators. It is easy to visualize a teacher asking a student if the student really wants to lose the privilege of driving a car just to skip class. Perhaps even more important, this amendment provides a valuable tool for many students who face negative peer pressure to skip classes.

It is easy to visualize a dialogue between two students, with one urging the other to skip classes to go downtown for a smoke. This amendment provides an effective tool which the more responsible student can use to counteract this form of negative peer pressure. If giving in to negative peer pressure to skip class has the potential to cause the student to lose the opportunity to qualify for his or her driver's licence, or worse still, lose his or her driver's licence, the chances are the student will refuse to follow the negative influence and will stay in class.

Fifteen states in the United States have enacted legislation, with different variables, similar to this legislation, states such as California, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana. They have all experienced success. In the case of West Virginia, which enacted the legislation in 1988, in 1989 they experienced an immediate increase in attendance at class in school. It went up from 80-odd per cent to 95%, and in cases to as high as 98%. It had an immediate impact.

I ask the members here today to please support this bill.

1010

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate. I'd just like to point out, at the outset, that I am not supportive of this bill, and I'm going to outline my reasons why. This bill has a particularly close parallel to one introduced in the previous session, Bill 134, by the member for Halton Centre, Mr Young. I must tell you I was happy to see that bill die on the order paper and I hope the members do not have the poor sense to give this bill any life either.

I would like to talk about two aspects: the intent of this bill and the methods for punishment this bill is suggesting. This bill in meant, in the words of the member for Kitchener, to "reduce crime in and around schools and to increase attendance and therefore the learning ability of students." I must be very frank with the members that I don't see the intent of this bill in exactly in the same light. To me, this bill is an extreme and an inefficient and ineffective way to address the problems of youth crime and truancy. I don't think the punitive and short-term measures that the member is suggesting, and that seem to be the member's intent, are the way to go.

The purpose of this bill seems to be to enforce a system of discrimination against youth. In fact, it does quite a bit more than that. It sets up a whole additional level of bureaucracy that would be needed to enforce it. I will come to a bit about that later, but I am curious whether or not the member has run this by the member for Lincoln, the head of the government's vaunted Red Tape Commission, for what the practical effect would be should this bill become law.

Creating another level of bureaucracy for punishing young people will be more expensive for all the jurisdictions concerned: the criminal justice system, the education system, the incarceration system, and the federal government because this covers wide-ranging levels of government.

I want to talk a little bit about the methodology of this bill. The first question I would pose is: Is this legislation really necessary? The stated purpose is to prevent those young people who are enrolled in school and have been found guilty of an offence involving drugs, violence or the use of alcohol - is it not true that young persons and the laws governing them are adequately served by legislation and policy directives that are already in place?

I will cite a few examples. Smoking by young people and smoking on school property is covered by local bylaws, by board of education policies and covered by the Tobacco Products Control Act. The use of alcohol by people under the age of 19 is controlled by provincial offences as well as the Criminal Code. Possession, sale and ingestion of intoxicating drugs is governed by the Food and Drugs Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; in fact it's incorrectly identified as the former Narcotic Control Act in this bill.

Is it really necessary to introduce further legislation when these acts, and indeed the scope of punishment, is already covered under these acts I've mentioned? If that's the case, that already existing legislation covers the penalties the member seeks - as an example, a judge could impose a sanction similar to what the member is seeking here - then does this bill not fail the test that the government has stated, that they want to create less paper and more jobs? What this bill will do is exactly the opposite. It will create more paper and fewer jobs. Why a member of the Progressive Conservative government with that avowed goal would want to create another level of administration and bureaucracy to achieve the same penalties that already exist in law is beyond me. So it's an unnecessary overlap and increased paperwork from competing legislation.

The implementation and enforcement would no doubt be inefficient and costly. I would quote to you an article from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record where Principal Beresford says that he is uncertain how well such a bill could be enforced, so there are concerns there.

The member indicated in his comments that this is working well in all the jurisdictions that have tried this type of legislation. That's not exactly correct. There is at least one jurisdiction - I am not certain where - but Principal Beresford goes on to say there was one area that has dropped this practice because of concerns that it wasn't being enforced uniformly, so certainly questions of how it is going to be enforced are very timely and very topical.

The part of this about discouraging truancy is particularly concerning to me. That is one of the major objectives of this bill, to promote kids going to school. There are already tools within the school system and disciplines that can be imposed that can address this problem. Young people don't really need a coercive tool like this to get them to go to school. Actions should be to keep them in class and not affect their right to drive, in my opinion.

I'd like to be very clear with the members what this means, because the way the Education Act reads right now you can check yourself out of school when you turn 16. If your right to drive is affected by this piece of legislation because you do not meet the test of attendance in school, all you have to do is drop out. You can get your licence. Is that what we want to encourage?

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): No, we want to change that too.

Mr Caplan: The member says they'd like to change that. There were over 1,000 changes to the Education Act and I don't remember the member or the government proposing that particular change. If it does happen, that would certainly be a very progressive move, but it has not happened and this will potentially encourage young people to drop out of school. I don't think that any member in this House would want to encourage such an activity. This really amounts to an illegitimate use of power by adults against kids.

There was one other area I wanted to address and that was whether or not a young person who has been convicted of an offence under the Young Offenders Act, whether that information - and government members will be aware and all members of this House will be aware of the problems of communicating the names of offenders to other agencies. We have seen how individuals can run afoul of that portion of the law and some of the very serious consequences that it has.

Would it be possible under the law for that information to be transmitted to a school possibly, but to the Ministry of Transportation? I have been in touch with a legal clinic which specializes in laws pertaining to children and youth and it would seem that this would be quite problematic and in fact would offend part of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I would again suggest to members that you not move really all that swiftly on something which is going to have serious repercussions as far as contravening sections of the Criminal Code. We have seen what the results can be with the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the government's failed throne speech.

As I was saying earlier, this amounts to an illegitimate use of power by adults against kids. The approach of this bill is strictly punitive in nature. It does nothing to promote why kids should stay in school, it does nothing to prevent some of the offences. With all of the lists and all of the remedies available to the courts, to schools and to local jurisdictions, this is a back door way of finding another penalty and another punitive approach. In fact, I can see no rational connection between this legislation and the ability to drive and controlling the behaviour of young people. Study after study after study has demonstrated that, and I think members would certainly want to do some investigation and familiarize themselves with facts.

1020

This piece of legislation, this suggestion, amounts in my opinion to an unfair attack on our young people. I don't see adults being penalized in the same kinds of ways that this bill does. If the member for Kitchener argues that they are covered in existing legislation, then that legislation applies to everyone, so why would this bill be even necessary? The answer is simple. It's not. A discriminatory piece of legislation which targets young people is unfair. The law should apply to everyone, and if the intention of the member or of any member of this House is to have discriminatory laws, I wish that they would stand up and say that very clearly. As I said, this bill amounts to an illegitimate use of power by adults against young people.

I have been travelling the province for the past several months talking to young people. They tell me that they don't have a lot of trust for adults, because they see how they're treated differently. They feel they have been discriminated against by adults, by members of government. They would like equal treatment and equal standing within the confines of the law and in the way they are treated by the institutions that we uphold. This reinforces that perception that young people have, that there is going to be one law for adults and one law for young people, that we are going to have changes to the laws that we have in more punitive ways that are going to come through the back door. I don't think that's the kind of message we want to send to our young people.

I really do think that this bill will continue the feeling of alienation that our young people are feeling. It will continue the sense that no one is listening to them, no one is listening to their concerns, no one is prepared to stand up and say: "We're going to treat you fairly. We're going to listen to you."

The government has a track record of not listening to the people of Ontario, and I think that's specifically true in the case of our young people. You saw the case where students literally took to the streets of Ontario. They occupied office buildings to highlight the problem of high tuition and of student debt. What was the response of the government? Was it to extend a hand and say, "We're listening to you, we want to work with you, we want to help you"? No.

In the economic statement of December 15 by the Minister of Finance, you said, "We're going to increase your tuition 10% next year, 10% the year after. Not only that, but we're going to deregulate tuitions in graduate and professional programs," ultimately increasing the cost to students and their families, also increasing the debt burden that our young people are facing, so very much a difference between what young people are saying and what the government does in response. This bill is very similar along those lines.

I point out to members that maybe they should listen to their own experts. They have the rural youth strategy group, which was highlighted in the throne speech, which said that access to transportation and to drivers' licences ought to be relaxed for kids in rural areas. Very, very interesting. This piece of legislation contravenes that particular notion. The government in the throne speech said, "We will act on the recommendations of that group."

You have this very interesting dichotomy, very interesting approach to "young criminals," to young offenders, "We're going to punish them," but government experts are telling them something quite different, so I'm having some difficulty understanding why the member is bringing forward this type of legislation in light of the fact that their own experts, and they have promised to act on those recommendations, tell them to do something opposite.

I think you can see from my comments that this type of legislation is not only ridiculous, not only unnecessary, but will reinforce and will cause young people to lose even what small confidence they have that this government is at all caring about their interests and is at all listening to the messages they have. I encourage all members of this assembly to reject this piece of legislation.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to start out by talking about some of the principles that I agree with, and those include governments taking initiatives that attempt to prevent young people from being involved in drugs, being involved in alcohol before they are of legal drinking age, and trying to prevent them from being involved in criminal activities. I also agree with the principle that we should try and encourage students to remain in school for as long as possible and that we need to instil in young people that being able to operate a motor vehicle in Ontario is a privilege and that it's not a right that comes without responsibilities.

Having said that, however, I just want to express my reservations about this legislation and its attempts to try and address those principles with which I indicate I agree. The member, in his opening remarks, said that this is an amendment that is simple. It certainly is, and we have seen from previous experience here that many times simple amendments don't accomplish what they set out to achieve.

One of the things that concerns me about this legislation is that it imposes additional sanctions flowing from convictions for criminal offences, and there are other examples where that takes place. I can think of convictions for impaired driving under the Criminal Code, for example, where there is an automatic suspension of a person's driving licence for a minimum of one year and increasing depending on the number of previous convictions that a driver may have.

That's something that is acceptable, because it refers specifically to driving restrictions and deals with an offence where a person was involved in criminal activity while they were driving their car, so it makes sense in that case. As well, it is a restriction that has universal application, and as the member for Oriole pointed out, the laws in Canada do have universal application, so that if you are convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code, the penalty should be the same no matter what your age. There are exceptions with respect to that as well, and we see those in the Young Offenders Act.

However, in this case I would like the member to address the reason why he would think there should be additional sanctions if you are convicted of some types of offences depending on your age. In order to do that, he needs to address the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says there shall not be any discrimination in the application of laws in this country. That's a very important factor to take into account. I would be interested in knowing how he addresses that issue, because I'm not sure that's the message we want to present to young people, that it's okay to have discrimination in some of our laws that increase penalties towards young people.

I am also concerned about the information about the conviction of persons, which in many cases, for this law to be effective, is going to apply to persons who are young offenders. How is the Ministry of Transportation going to obtain the names of young offenders? That's something that I hope the member addresses in his remarks as well. We have seen an example of the release of information that would tend to identify a young offender in the throne speech last week. It led to the resignation of the Solicitor General, and as far as I know, it's still the law that information that leads to the identification of a young offender can't be released without the young offender's consent. I don't know how that is going to be addressed either.

1030

In the events that followed the throne speech, the former Solicitor General tended to indicate that the ends justify the means and that there are certain occasions where it's reasonable, if it's effective, to release information that would tend to identify young offenders. I disagree with that. I think that's another message we can't be presenting to young people: that the end justifies the means even if that may be contrary to the law.

Something we really need to focus on is the reason that young people become involved in criminal activity and why they may not be attending school. That's something this government needs to pay serious attention to. Although sanctioning young people with the suspension of their driver's licence may encourage them to stay in school longer, who knows whether that's the case or not? I think that there may be other examples, many good examples, of why young people become involved in criminal activity and why they're not attending school.

Study after study shows that if there is not a sufficient investment in people when they are young, even before they're going to school, even before they're born - we're going to be debating a resolution later on that talks about how important it is to invest in babies. It's also important to invest in young mothers before they have children so that those children grow up to be healthy. We know that if children get a good start in life, they tend not to become involved in criminal activities. We know that if you invest $1 in young persons before they even start attending school, the return on that investment is at $7 later on. The return on that investment comes from reduced costs towards involvement in criminal activity, court costs, custody costs, the costs of drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, costs in the health care system as well, because we know that children who are well taken care of when they're young don't tend to get sick as often. I think that's where we need to be focusing our attention, because by the time a person is old enough to drive, sanctions such as this are punitive and are not going to have, in all cases, the anticipated results that we're trying to achieve.

Those are just some of the concerns I have with respect to this bill. I also share the concern about young people who may be encouraged just to drop out of school when they're 16. I'd like to know how the member intends to deal with that issue as well, because that may be encouraging our students to drop out of school and not to stay in school. That's certainly not a principle I agree with, as I indicated when I first began my remarks. Those are the concerns I have with respect to this bill.

My friend from Welland-Thorold has a few remarks to make. I'll give him an opportunity to make those.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm particularly delighted to join in this deliberation regarding the member for Kitchener's bill linking attendance at school with driving privileges on Ontario's road system. I'd like to commend the member for presenting the idea and trying to achieve what I think he has in the bill, the objective of safer roads, because all of us share a fundamental concern about the high incidence of tragedies and fatalities on our highways, not only in Ontario but across Canada, particularly with our younger people. He has listened to the folks of Cameron Heights secondary school. He has tried to fashion a bill which meets the concerns and express wishes of these young people. I believe there are probably other young people around the province who have looked at this bill on its Internet site and sent in some messages that favour it.

However, the Ministry of Transportation does have some specific concerns regarding the implementation of the bill, should it ever become law.

The first fundamental concern, which is the foundation of the bill, is the strategic linkage between attendance at school, presumably a secondary school - it could be a college, I guess - and driving on the roadways in Ontario. The problem with the attendance concept, as I understand attendance today in many schools and in many school boards across Ontario, is that when you get to grade 12, certainly when you get to your OACs, there is a voluntary sign-in system. That particular concern would have to be examined, should the member decide to have this bill go to a committee. That's one of the key policy areas one would have to look at, particularly with how it applied to the states where he has cited that the linkage of the idea has provided success and greater safety for young people using our road system.

The second concern for the Ministry of Transportation relates to the administrative dimensions of this particular concept, because the ministry is concerned to a great degree about linking a non-driving activity, in this case attendance at a secondary school, with driving a vehicle, which many people still consider a privilege in Ontario. How do you create a strategic linkage and yet at the same time preserve the integrity of the driver registration system throughout this province?

The third concern the ministry has is the potential for creating a questionable precedent, because that is based on the tenuous relationship at this point, as set out in the bill, linking attendance to driving performance on our highways. There is some concern from the ministry as to what could occur should this bill ever become law structured the way it is.

Those three particular items are the principal concerns of the ministry. I think within that context, there has to be considerable detail and great scrutiny of this bill from those three perspectives.

Let me just conclude by stating, however, that I listened to the member of Oriole, as I always do, with some delight to see whether he had any alternative in terms of trying to create a linkage. As per usual, I find his new-found interest in red tape bills absolutely bizarre. It was the member's relationship with the previous occupant of the riding of Oriole, if you go back and look at the long lengths and strands of red tape we're facing at the Red Tape Commission, that is directly linked to what occurred in many, many areas of public policy through the Peterson administration. It's great to hear that the member has suddenly discovered an interest in red tape.

To conclude, related to the bill for the member for Kitchener, it is a concept or a principle that needs to be worked on with great vigour should it go to committee, otherwise the Ministry of Transportation still would have its principal concerns related to the computer application of the bill, how this particular idea could impact the integrity of the driver registration system throughout the province and the strategic linkage of attendance to driving.

1040

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I looked with great interest at this bill from Mr Wettlaufer. Having heard the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, I find myself reviewing my position on the bill. I at first found some merit to this, and I know that the motives of the member are sound, and I am not by any stretch of the imagination about to criticize them.

But listening to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, as everyone has done - and I appreciate Mr Hastings's contribution to this debate - it appears that Mr Wettlaufer's own colleague from the Ministry of Transportation has been effective at scuttling support for Mr Wettlaufer's bill.

I told Mr Wettlaufer that had the bill been left with just the first half dealing with the matter of convictions under drug offences or liquor offences, the Criminal Code, it may well have been a valuable bill to send to committee for refinement and for discussion and debate. I, along with Mr Hastings, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation - and you know, it's not often that I agree with Mr Hastings. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I've found myself in agreement with Mr Hastings. It's the first time Mr Hastings has been right. I am pleased to be able to acknowledge that and announce that here in the House, that Mr Hastings today was correct in his analysis. It's two and a half years down the road, but Mr Hastings has finally got it right. As I say, I've been persuaded, and I trust other members have as well.

Mr Lessard from our caucus, from Windsor-Riverside, has spoken to the rather wacky component of the bill and that's the business of school attendance. I suppose some would accuse me of having some self-interest, because if this bill had been in effect, requiring school attendance before one was eligible for a driver's licence, I wouldn't have received my licence till I was around 35 years old and it would have interfered with a whole lot of opportunities that a driver's licence gives to young people.

Maybe, rather than these purported solutions - I don't think this is a solution to the problem Mr Wettlaufer identifies - maybe the solutions, rather than coming from middle-aged members of the Legislative Assembly, should be coming from young people themselves. I would look forward quite frankly - and again I respect the fact that Mr Wettlaufer received guidance from educators, the principal, the guidance counsellor and the parent council of this school. I understand this is modelled on what may well be successful experiences in other jurisdictions - American ones again. The obsession this government has with the American right wing is no longer remarkable because it's become the norm rather than the exception.

It would be so nice to have a chat with young people. I've got to tell you, I suspect the real problems young people identify that they themselves are facing go well beyond the intent of Mr Wettlaufer's bill. The real issues are things like jobs and work. The reality down in Niagara region - I suspect it's not dissimilar from any other part of the province - is that the jobs young people used to do as students, that I did and Mr Lessard did and Ms Lankin did when we were students, the part-time, minimum-wage jobs, are no longer available to students because their parents are working at those jobs. So young people are finding it increasingly difficult, and we know that the rate of unemployment among young people is double that of their parents. The despair that creates surely is profound.

There is the fear young people have, never mind of finishing high school, of being able to pursue post-secondary education, be it at the college level or the university level, because of the massive increases in tuition costs, and every indication that they're going to increase even further. That seems to me to be a far more profound problem - not to diminish the intent of Mr Wettlaufer - that I would have hoped Mr Wettlaufer would have wanted to address.

I have great fears for the future of young people in this province. I know that the children of the very wealthy will manage to do just fine, thank you kindly, but I fear that the children of the rest of Ontario, those who don't share in the wealth, that the number, the size of that group of people is becoming larger and larger every day with this government's policy, aided and abetted by Jean Chrétien in Ottawa, no two ways about it. Mike Harris and Jean Chrétien have far more in common than they do separate in terms of their fiscal policies, in terms of incorporating Americana and American fiscal policies - dead American fiscal policies, those that date back to Ronald Reagan - into Canadian and Ontario life.

Unfortunately, I find myself in a position where I'm not going to be able to support this bill either. I want to thank Mr Hastings for his guidance in this matter. I appreciate that and I want to acknowledge that clearly.

Mr Klees: I am pleased to rise to speak in support of this bill, brought forward by my colleague from Kitchener, primarily because I agree with the principle that I believe the honourable member is addressing. I find it difficult that any member of this House would have difficulty with that principle, namely, that there should be consequences for offences that relate to a conviction resulting from the use of drugs or violence or alcohol.

I think specifically there has been so much discussion about the fact that in this province and in this country, while there may be penalties prescribed, all too often those penalties are never carried out, that when there are convictions, when incarceration is prescribed, a very small part of that sentence is ever really carried out.

It would be very valuable for members of this Legislature to pay a visit to institutions that are housing young offenders, that are housing individuals in the province who have been convicted, and see what the very uncomfortable circumstances are, the sadness of the state of affairs that people are dealing with who have lost their freedom as a result of breaking the law. Rightfully so that they be there, but let me suggest that what the member is trying to address in this proposal is that we build into our law some prevention so that young people have an opportunity to assess their choices before they make them - some matters of consequence their very lifestyle, something they consider important.

I agree with the member that for a young person to get his or her driver's licence is a very important passage in their lifetime. To have the sense that perhaps by making the wrong choice, to engage either in the use of drugs or alcohol, or to participate in a violent act, that may have the consequence not just simply of being designated a young offender - because unfortunately that today doesn't bear with it the appropriate consequences that are necessary to dissuade that kind of behaviour. I believe that the member with this particular recommendation is getting to the heart, as he put it, of motivation in the lives of young people. Let's build in some consequences.

Someone has said that as we consider legislation or the drafting of laws, we should be considering three aspects. First, is it morally right? Second, is it legally defensible? Third, is it practical and reasonable for implementation at this time?

On the question of whether it is morally right, members opposite obviously feel it's not. I can tell you I feel that it's also not morally right that in this province and in this country we have come to the point where the laws of our land actually undermine the authority of parents, the authority of teachers and the authority of institutions to the point where there is, in many cases, very little respect left for authority. I suggest to you that it rests with members of this House to restore that kind of respect and authority, that respect for the laws of our land, and that we build in consequences.

1050

I ask the members opposite, is it morally right to build in significant consequences to wrong choices in people's lives, particularly at an early age? I believe that it is not only morally right, I believe it is our moral obligation as legislators to ensure that incorporated into the laws of this province there are the necessary consequences that cause young people particularly to pause before they make the choices that are before them. I think we have an opportunity here to do exactly that.

Is it legally defensible? Members argue Charter of Rights, members argue discrimination. I can say to you that I believe that has become, unfortunately, a very convenient argument in legislatures across our country when someone perhaps doesn't have the courage to take a stand on something that, yes, will have some opposition. It probably will not be popular. It may not be popular with those young people with whom you've had a lot of dialogue, I say to the member for Oriole. Any time that we build consequences into people's lives it's uncomfortable and we would rather not have them be there. But I can tell you from young people I've spoken to - and this is the vast majority of young people in our province, who are law-abiding, who do not want to have the kinds of activities around their schools like violence, drug use and alcohol abuse - they do not want that kind of activity interfering with their activities in and near their schools. The majority of the young people in our province, I believe, would in principle as well support this.

Is this being done anywhere? The member from Windsor suggested that this has serious legal implications. It is being done. It's being done in our country right now. It's being done in the province of Manitoba. Manitoba for a number of years has been using drivers' licences to control the behaviour of young people in that province. I suggest to you that we would do well to follow a solid example. There has been no challenge against that activity in Manitoba. Perhaps over the years they have had legislators who have had much more courage than legislators in this House. I think this is our opportunity to step up to the plate, take on the challenge and work with this.

Is it legally defensible? Is it practical? My recommendation would be that we refer this bill to the standing committee on administration of justice, because clearly there are some aspects of this that need to be reassessed, that perhaps need some refinement, and to ensure that it fits into the overall framework. I would support that.

I commend the honourable member for bringing this forward. I thank the young people with whom he has been working, with their creativity and their support for it, and I believe it's the right thing for Ontario.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It's a pleasure to rise today. As all members do, I've done research on this bill and talked with constituents, but in a meeting I had with students from three schools this morning we briefly discussed the issue and I asked for their input. They were from my riding. The schools were Eastdale, Central, and my old school, Mclaughlin, as well as a group of exchange students from France. I must add that it was a pleasure to see a teacher of mine when I was schooled at Mclaughlin - Ms Grabowski at that time, now Ms Gadd - was there.

What surprised me was that there was concern about the issue of the impact it would have on individuals of that age and trying to get jobs. The overwhelming position of the students at that time supported the piece of legislation that's before the House at this time. It was that position that swayed me now. I will be supporting that and recommending it go to committee to finalize all the details at that time.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kitchener, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Wettlaufer: I appreciate the members for Oriole, Windsor-Riverside, Etobicoke-Rexdale, Welland-Thorold, York-Mackenzie and Oshawa taking part.

There is concern about enforcement implementation and would there be uniformity in enforcement. I submit to the members here that this is why we have committees, to do studies on how an act would be implemented, to ensure there would be uniformity.

There is concern about the voluntary sign-in re absenteeism. That should also be addressed by committee. That's why we have committees. There is concern about the Young Offenders Act. There is concern about the Young Offenders Act all through this country, so much concern that the federal justice minister, Anne McLellan, has suggested that it will be amended and that the young offenders will be named.

There is concern about dropouts, that this might actually increase the rate of dropout. The experience in the United States, in those states which implemented this legislation, proves the exact opposite; it actually increased the number of students staying in school.

The member for Welland-Thorold raised the concern of young people and he said their concern was jobs. I find it rather ironic that this member, who was a cabinet minister in a former government, would raise the concern of young people's jobs when it was during that government that the rate of unemployment, particularly among young people, increased. I was an operator of a small business during the term of that government, and you know, how to operate a successful business is to start with a big one and elect an NDP government.

The Acting Speaker: The first ballot item has expired.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I move that in the opinion of this House the provincial government should expand the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program, so that children identified through the program who are at risk of social, emotional, physical or learning challenges, receive the necessary services to support their healthy growth and development.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Arnott: I'm very pleased to bring forward this resolution this morning, intended to draw attention to this excellent program, and to speak in support of its expansion.

When we think of society's most vulnerable members, babies and children are certainly at the top of our list. They are completely dependent on adults for their care, for their nourishment, for their start in life. The care they receive at this critical stage determines to a great degree their future prospects in life.

As a government, I believe that vulnerable children at risk of poor development have to be among our highest priorities. We need to ensure that parents receive the support and advice they may need to adequately meet the needs of their children. That's why I'm so pleased that the Minister of Health has recognized this area as a priority, with the establishment of the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program. Recently I was very pleased to join her at the announcement of funding in the amount of over $130,000 for the Healthy Babies program serving Wellington county.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Community and Social Services and the minister responsible for children's issues and recognize their important work in the development of this program. We also owe a great debt of gratitude to our public health nurses, whose expertise in identifying and supporting families with babies and young children at risk forms the basis for the development of this crucial early intervention program.

The old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is certainly applicable in the Healthy Babies program. The Healthy Babies program identifies families who have the potential to be at risk, linking them with existing social, health and educational programs in their communities. All children in Ontario will be screened at the hospital or prenatally by physicians, midwives or nurses. Assessment of all at-risk families is conducted by these professionals, and an in-depth home assessment is undertaken by visiting public health nurses, intending to help the families who may be at high risk.

Parents of children who are deemed to be potentially at high risk may be offered home visits by nurses or home support visitors specially trained and supported by public health nurses. Home visitors are parents from the community who are trained in child development and are knowledgeable about services in the community that would be of benefit to parents and their babies.

1100

Through education, advice and support, parents who would otherwise feel isolated and apprehensive about child-rearing are given a helping hand to alleviate the pressures of parenting, meet the needs of their children and create an environment where obstacles to a child's development and abuse and neglect are less likely to occur. The services are as broad as the problems the families may be encountering, from mother-and-infant programs to literacy, employment services and family counselling.

Research on early intervention programs seems to demonstrate that the most important feature is the home visiting component. The Healthy Babies program provides provincial funding for some high-risk families to receive an average of 13 visits over a two-year period. That amounts to about one visit every two months until the child is two. My resolution this morning speaks to the need to expand healthy babies so that all children at risk receive sufficient home visits, with the number of visits tailored to the needs of the family.

I firmly believe that if we want the healthy babies program to reach its full potential in helping vulnerable children, the government must devote more financial resources to the program so that at-risk children and their families receive continuous, frequent and prolonged support through home visiting. Research has told us that home visiting in early intervention programs is the single most important factor in promoting healthy mental, emotional and physical development of children, while reducing the incidence of abuse and neglect.

Success of early intervention programs in other jurisdictions, most notably the Healthy Start program in Hawaii, has hinged on the frequency and duration of home visits to all families at risk. Healthy Start boasts an incredible 99% success rate in preventing abuse and neglect for families enrolled in their program, which is tremendous success. All families participating in the Healthy Start program start with weekly visits by a support worker. These visits can continue until the child is five years old. As families become more stable and secure, the frequency of visits declines substantially, for the need is diminished.

Key elements of the Healthy Start model are being replicated in many jurisdictions in the United States and are supported by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse through the Healthy Families initiative.

Successful intervention programs show us that when families receive visits on a regular and frequent basis over a long period, a rapport develops between the family and the home visitor or nurse. This special and trusted person is viewed as a helpful friend, rather than a stranger, and the family becomes more comfortable in identifying problems that the nurse or home visitor can attempt to help them resolve. The nurses and home visitors are the links, the lifelines for some families, to advice and services that help them to properly care for their child.

The government should also support and encourage municipalities that may wish to devote their own resources to supplement this program. I recognize that with the realignment of services, municipalities have many new challenges and are attempting to make the most efficient use of their resources. Municipal governments have a record of responding to the needs of their communities by delivering necessary services efficiently and at a reasonable cost. Local governments in Wellington have demonstrated this fiscal prudence over the years while delivering the services that people need efficiently and effectively. If municipal governments feel that the healthy babies program is worthwhile - I believe they will - I hope they would give consideration to devoting more resources to the program, to supplement the government's support.

I believe that volunteers could also make a valuable contribution to the Healthy Babies program. For three years, before I was elected in 1990, I volunteered as a Big Brother in my home town of Arthur. Big Brothers attempts to team boys without fathers with a positive male role model. This program is very successful in providing boys with a male presence in their lives. Its success, I believe, is due to the one-on-one personal attention that children receive and the friendship that inevitably follows.

The same concept could be employed to supplement home visits in the Healthy Babies program. In Wellington county there are many parents who have a great deal of child-rearing experience and who I know would be prepared to contribute to their communities in this positive way. Many parents would derive great satisfaction by helping families with their time, knowledge, advice and support. I urge the government to examine closely how we can make better use of volunteers in the Healthy Babies program to stretch our resources and help more families.

I would like to now read excerpts from letters and submissions I've received in support of expanding the Healthy Babies program from organizations and people devoted to protecting and promoting the health of children.

Dr Douglas Kittle, who is in the Legislature today, of the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Health Unit, has written, "I strongly support your efforts to ensure that funding be made available to allow this important program to be successful in its support of families."

Moe Brubacher, who is the executive director of Family and Children's Services of Guelph and Wellington County, has written: "We are convinced that prevention programs can be an effective and cost-effective way to alleviate problems arising from child maltreatment. Thus we strongly support your resolution."

Dr Paul Steinhauer, who is one of Canada's foremost children's psychiatrists, and who works at the Hospital for Sick Children, writes, "I look forward to being able to help you in any way I can with your private member's bill in support of greater funding for Healthy Babies, Healthy Children."

Peter Ringrose, executive director of Family and Children's Services of Waterloo Region, writes, "Expand the Healthy babies program to include pre-birth visiting where needed, and longer periods of post-birth visiting and support through the use of well-trained volunteers."

Gordon White, who is the executive director of the Association of Local Official Health Agencies, has written, "Your government has shown leadership and vision by implementing this program and can now go farther by ensuring it is adequately funded to really achieve the goal of healthier babies and children."

Mary McConville, executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, has written: "Experience has taught us that home visiting, where needed, should be extended at least until a young child reaches the school age or is enrolled in a preschool child care program. Continuing to invest in prevention will reap long-term rewards for our children and for the province of Ontario."

Sandra Randell, who is president of the Association of Nursing Directors of Official Health Agencies, a group that represents public health nursing management in Ontario, writes, "Using a prevention/early intervention approach, Healthy Babies, Healthy Children has the potential to create a lasting impact on the shape of Ontario in the future by promoting the optimal growth and development of all children in Ontario - our future citizens and our leaders."

By bringing together all of our resources as a society, we can ensure that the needs of all children are met, that they grow up in a safe and nurturing environment. If the provincial government can provide parents with the skills and coping tools they need to catch potential problems from the beginning, before they develop, children will be the big winners.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I look forward to the debate this morning.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm very pleased to say that the Ontario Liberal Party will wholeheartedly endorse the private member's bill being brought forward today by the member for Wellington.

I must say to the member that I enjoyed my visit on Tuesday, when I spent the day in his region, and in fact encouraged the member to go further in forwarding the cause that the Ontario Liberal Party has been forwarding for some time. We know that the page today has been taken directly from our report, from the McGuinty Task Force on Children, called First Steps and we're very pleased to see that he is endorsing our proposal, that in fact his private member's bill relates directly to what we are proposing in First Steps.

We welcome the people who are here in the gallery today from that region. I very much enjoyed speaking specifically about First Steps in the Waterloo-Wellington region just this week. I had the opportunity to speak with students at the Waterloo-Oxford District Secondary School, who gave various concerns about the provincial government, and in the afternoon spent a good deal of time at a round table with educators who came to listen and discuss various aspects of the First Steps program that the Ontario Liberal Party is putting forward. So I applaud the member from Waterloo region who is coming forward to say First Steps is exactly where the government must be in making children a priority.

We certainly have had concerns over the last several years that the focus of government has not been on children. This morning we talked with listeners of CHIN radio, much of the Italian community. We talked to the Italian community this morning about First Steps. We had callers from the Toronto area, from the Italian community, calling in to give us commentary on our discussion of the First Steps program. They were asking us questions about day care, asking us questions about what we intend to do.

1110

Many of the comments from the Italian listeners were about their experiences when they're having babies in hospitals. One of the key planks of the First Steps program discusses the first 48 hours of a child's life. We know those are very crucial days and certainly a crucial part of those first zero-to-three years. We propose that we introduce a minimum stay of 48 hours for all moms when they're having babies - they can certainly choose to leave earlier if it's not a new experience - but in particular for new moms, who have to use those first few hours to rest, to be educated about some very basic things like bathing new babies, to discuss issues like breast feeding with professionals at the hospital.

I have to raise a concern. While we laud the introduction of this kind of private member's bill and certainly will support it, at the same time this very same government, through various ministries, actually is moving in the reverse direction where it affects children. For example, this member today should be speaking about what home visits will find in the homes of children who actually have that intervention.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Speaker, if he's going to interrupt, you should stop the clock.

The Acting Speaker: It's a point of order. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it works.

Mr Parker: Mr Speaker, it's one thing to lift a document to make a demonstration; it's another thing to keep the prop on display throughout one's remarks. I think it's time to put the -

The Acting Speaker: I think that's a bit farfetched, because I've seen quite often documents by this government being used as a referral text. I don't call this, in my opinion, a prop. If you don't agree with my decision, you can always challenge me.

Mrs Pupatello: We have little enough time in this House to discuss children, so I don't enjoy the fact that I'd be interrupted on this most important issue.

For those people who choose to call us to get a copy of the First Steps program, the back of it - which is what I'm referring to - will show the building blocks that are a significant foundation of the First Steps program. Right on that, you will see it says, "Forty-eight-hour hospital care for new mothers."

It's a very important step and new moms should know about what it is we are advancing. The point is that when we introduce more home visits, which is what this member is choosing to do today - he's actually saying that if we discover that there are issues that families need to contend with once they've had a home visit, we have to have the opportunity in our communities to address issues with these families. That means services available in the community to address need, whether that be through children's mental health agencies, which this government has cut, or whether that means programs through children's aid societies, which this government has cut. We have a great deal of difficulty that while the member comes forward to try to push the government forward in the direction the Ontario Liberal Party would like to see us go, his government is moving in the reverse direction on a number of fronts that affect children.

We heard the member today talk about the importance of local public health. This is the same government that downloaded the cost of the public health units on cities and towns right across Ontario. We can only hope that there will be the opportunity for those local city councillors and town councillors to have the finances to continue to provide necessary programs like nurses. Public health units have been cut back year after year after year, and when we went around Ontario and talked about children we met with public health units, public health nurses, who had significant concerns about what they weren't able to do because they simply didn't have the finances.

I would encourage this same member from the Waterloo region to go to his own caucus and his own cabinet to say, "What this government needs is a children-first policy directive," so that when every single ministry of the Ontario government chooses to bring a new policy or a new initiative, the first filter they use is, what effect will that change have on children in Ontario? If the government had used that in its last three years, my view is that many children would not have had negative effects from this very same government.

Just a couple of weeks ago we heard the Premier himself talk about why he felt it was necessary to take nutrition moneys from pregnant mothers. I find it very hard to parallel those remarks by the Premier with the member who brings forward a private member's bill today. They're completely opposed. We know that nutrition is most important for pregnant moms whether they're on assistance or not. The last thing the government should be doing through regulation or through bills in this House is making it more difficult for mothers to be good moms. We all know that it's a parent's responsibility to take care of their children, and the role of the Ontario government should be to provide the kind of policies and direction and leadership to allow parents to do their job well and to give support when sometimes that kind of support is necessary.

Let me conclude by saying that we will be supporting the private member's bill today. I'm happy to share my time with other members of the Liberal caucus who also will be supporting the initiative. We can only hope this member will go further than that, will go further in speaking to his colleagues, his colleagues in the cabinet of the Conservative Party, who are moving in the reverse direction. I hope this member will be capable of putting the brakes on that direction.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to make a brief comment. If you have a document in front of you and you refer to it, that is acceptable. But if you do it in such a way as to taunt the opposition, it becomes iffy, it becomes nearly a prop. I think you have to trust your own judgement on that. The Speaker was quite adamant, quite clear, on props. If you have a document in your hand and you refer to it, occasionally you show it, but if you do it purposely, if you hold it in front of you to arouse the ire, if I can put it this way, of the government or the opposition, it's not acceptable. I think it's a question of judgement.

Let's proceed with the debate.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel somewhat hard done by in that you've made your ruling just before I hold up and taunt the government with my document, but I'm actually going to refer to it and not just hold it.

I want to begin by saying that I certainly, on behalf of my caucus, indicate that we will be supporting the resolution of the member for Wellington. The member for Wellington knows that I have a great deal of respect for him personally and I know his commitment in this area and believe that his resolution comes very genuinely from the heart and is something he cares about.

I have to say to him that I wish the same were true of his government. In part my remarks today will be in support of his resolution, but I must point out some of the contradictions in terms of what's happening in the province today.

Let me begin by talking about the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program. In the limited start we have with it, it is a program this government has initiated which I am very supportive of. You referred to what I think is considered worldwide the successful pilot project, in a sense, in Hawaii; we have had longitudinal studies from that to show us the success that program has had and the difference it has made in people's lives. Surely, that's what being government is about and surely that's what these programs are about, to make a difference in people's lives.

We have seen from all kinds of research around the world, whether it be the United States, the UK, western Europe, that these kinds of programs of early intervention and support mean so much. The years zero to three - zero to six, but primarily zero to three - are the critical formation years for children, and anything we can do to support kids in their healthy development during that period of time is of such importance in terms of their future success.

I had an opportunity during my period as Minister of Health in this province to work on building and expanding the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program, again designed to provide supports to families in the early days. This is an area that the member for Wellington referred to as the ounce of prevention, and I fully support governments using resources in a wise way, using resources in the front end to prevent problems, to support wellness, to support healthy development when it comes to children.

1120

I've had the extreme pleasure and honour over the years to meet with, speak with, and work with, in some circumstances, some of the people the member for Wellington referred to in the testimonial letters he read out, people like Paul Steinhauer. You didn't mention Fraser Mustard, but I know Fraser would be completely supportive of this initiative as well, and Dan Offer, people like that, who have spent years doing the research and trying to convince governments of all stripes of the importance of moving forward in very comprehensive way in dealing with children.

The problem I have is that while I support what the member wants to do in expansion of this program and think that could make a big difference, we have to take a look at this program not in isolation but in the context within which it fits in the province of Ontario right now. The member referred to the fact that one of the things the program does and can do is to help make links for children and families at risk to other services out there, to social services and health services and family services.

I'm about to recite a litany of cuts from this Harris government to those very services. The very services needed to support families in our communities are being stripped back. We may be able to get the early identification, which is very important - please don't get me wrong; I support that completely - but where people go from there and where they get the supports, the other umbrella of support, the safety net in our community, there are holes in that. It is fraying right now. We must look to rebuilding that safety net, that support for families in our neighbourhoods and in our communities.

When I think of some of the specifics - I had a meeting recently with an official from the Toronto District School Board. This is just one school board, but these stories are being replicated around the province. As they're dealing with the cuts in education funding, the new funding formula and how it's structured, they're telling me what the results of some of that would mean in terms of programs that are going to be lost to the board.

The parenting support program for teen moms who are in school, the very families who will be at risk, who will be visited occasionally by public health nurses, which will be very important, but who are getting daily support in the school for those who are attending school - that program is going. That is a crime. It's going because of this government's cuts.

The breakfast program: The government made a great ballyhoo a year ago or so about putting some money for a period of time into the breakfast programs. The breakfast nutrition programs in the Toronto District School Board are likely going to be cut, again as the result of the changes in funding.

I refer just briefly to one of a number of documents from Putting Children First, a report that our leader, Howard Hampton, and I, as children's critic, were involved in producing and distributing about a year or a year and a half ago, a major report on responding to the government's proposed child care reforms and a number of other areas dealing with children's services. This particular folder is called A Litany of Cuts to Children. It's four pages, but I'm just going to highlight some of them. I think you'll see, I say to the member for Wellington, the importance of also pushing the government to restore supports and services in some of these other areas.

First of all, half a million Ontario children were affected by this first extreme action of the Harris government, which was the social assistance rate cut of 21.6%. Half of the people in Ontario on social assistance were children. Those children are worse off today, children who are more at risk, more in need of the program that you want to expand. There have been cuts to child care subsidies, forcing many municipalities to abandon those spaces. If you look at reports like the Perry report out of the States which looked at children at risk, early childhood education and supports, that's where the figure that the investment of $1 gets you $7 down the road came from. That's dealing particularly with families at risk. The loss of support services in our communities comes at a critical time, when families are poor and facing many more difficulties.

Recreational programs are cut, like Little Beavers for native children. They abolished the community support program that funded training and development programs for youth. It was specifically targeted at young single moms, people who need the supports to ensure that their kids aren't at risk. That has gone; that's been abolished. Those supports aren't there for them any more.

There are cuts to public funding for public libraries, one of the only places where her kids can get books. There were cuts to the children's aid society. We lost 450 front-line staff in the children's aid societies, people who were supposed to be part of early identification of kids at risk and child welfare and child protection. They eliminated the children's services coordinating advisory groups, which coordinated the patchwork of programs, tried to bring services together. They cut maternity homes, residential and non-residential programs for teen moms by 25%. If there is a group that is obviously more at risk than others, it is young single moms who need these kinds of supports, yet the government has cut those supports.

They have cut programs aimed at tackling family violence through early intervention or prevention. They cut, and in some cases eliminated, family counselling programs. In your remarks, you referred to one of the things that early intervention and supports can do: provide supports for the mom, like literacy. Those pro-literacy programs have been cut. The training programs have been cut. You mentioned family counselling. In some cases, they've been cut. In some cases, they've been totally eliminated as a result of the cuts of the Harris government.

This report goes on and talks about the proposed changes in child care. It talks about cuts to violence-against-women programs, which puts children in danger, and the fiasco at the family support plan. If you want to talk about supports to families, the family support plan, the economic support, what happened when your government laid off 290 experienced and trained staff and closed nine regional offices and centralized everything? They were all in boxes and there were computers all over the place, and families were not getting their cheques. How many kids did you put at risk during that period of time?

I have referred to some of the cuts in education, the loss of junior kindergarten. The new funding formula that has come out is a recipe for fewer services for early childhood education rather than more. The rhetoric sounds great, but when you look at how it is implemented and you look at the choices school boards are going to have to make with respect to enhancements in grades 1 to 3, when supports to the classroom have been cut, teaching assistants and other sorts of things, you'll see that the money will go there. That's the option that has been given, as opposed to putting it into JK and SK. It's going to mean less early childhood education.

Of course, we know that the fastest growing group of individuals using shelters in Metro Toronto, for example, is children. Affordable housing is an issue for kids.

There are many others I could refer to, I say to the member for Wellington, but I want to share my time with other members of my caucus. I believe your sincerity in your desire to have your government expand this program. I join with you in that request to the Harris government to expand this program. It is important. It would be worthwhile to expand this program.

But I have to say that doing that in isolation, without looking at all of the other areas in which the government's actions have made kids' lives worse - just read some of the reports that have come out: the McConville report two days ago, the Finlay, the child advocate report, yesterday, and we're waiting for the three reports the minister won't release. We know there are huge gaps in the system between child welfare, children's mental health, the young offender system and family supports. All of these areas, along with the litany of cuts I read off, are areas the government must also pay attention to.

We will be voting in favour of your resolution, but it is with the strongest advice that you work equally hard to ensure your government restores funding to these other critical areas for families and children.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I stand today to support my colleague the member for Wellington in this important bill. What I am going to be talking about today is what's actually happening with this program in my area of Huron county. I have talked to some people who are involved with children in my area, and I think it's important for people to understand exactly what the funds for Healthy Babies, Healthy Children are being used for. So far, $10 million has been put into this program. My riding, which is very rural, got very little of the money. I want to talk about how they've stretched those dollars and what we would do if we had more funds, if we had more support for Healthy Babies, Healthy Children.

I would first like to say that I have two very active boys. I can only imagine what it must be like when things are different in your family and you might be a family that is classified as at risk or as needing help from the community.

When the Ministry of Health, and in my case the Huron county public health board, talks about a family at risk, what they're really talking about is a family that lacks supports, for example, not having family to fall back on, not having a mother who comes for two weeks when your baby is born, or when you're sick, someone who comes in and says, "I'll give you a hand." They lack family supports in some cases.

They have, in other cases, very poor parental role models. They might have had a disturbing life as a child themselves or they grew up in an abusive situation. We want to make sure that those people get all the benefits that a community has to give these people a hand up.

1130

In my riding, because we don't have a public transportation system, we also deal with the isolation issue. We have people in our community who have a baby, they're home with the baby for the four months' maternity leave or for a longer period of time, and they can't get out of the house. We have to be concerned about them and how they are coping with little baby and Mom at home alone and nobody else for most of the day. That's a tough issue too.

In our area there are some services, and people don't know what those services are. That's another issue where we think a family might be at risk. They might, in that particular case, just need knowledge.

The last case, which I think we all deal with at some time in our lives, is family stress. That can be as a result of a baby that has health problems when they're born, or just financial matters, or any of those things that are day-to-day matters that we deal with. That puts a family at risk.

We're saying, when the mother is at the hospital and any of those situations exist, we as a community need to look at that family grouping and ask, "Is there anything we can do to help these people?" Nurses come into the hospital - in my case, the county of Huron public health offices - and they say: "We think we have a family that's at risk here. We would like you to look at this family and to decide what should be done."

This program is run, as you heard earlier, by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but there are many people in the community who make this system work. Our advisory board that makes this work includes children's aid, day care, public health. It includes a great program we have in our community called rural response for healthy children. There are a great number of people who work to make sure that this program works for the people of Ontario.

When you talk about who might be at risk, if you don't know your community or you're in a specific segment of your community, you might not recognize that the numbers are just as high as they are. The Ministry of Health has given statistics, which are basically being confirmed by my community, that say for every 100 children born, 25 of those children have some factors that might put them at risk. Of those 25, 12 are at high risk. I think those are the people we're trying to focus on. We're trying to ask, "What can we do to make sure that those children have an existence we're all happy with and that they are safe and healthy in the future?" because we know that's a very important part.

In Huron county, a case worker comes into the family, and they first of all ask if they want help. Hopefully they do in those 12 cases out of 100, because there is a real opportunity to make the lives of those children better. We try to find people they consider to be people who can help them. We don't say: "You will have a person from the public health office. You will have X, Y and Z." We say, "Who do you think in the community can help you to go through this process?" We put people together. In our community, we have two lay resource visitors who will come into the community and help the family to deal with all these difficult issues. We've got those lay resource people coming in, and as the member for Wellington said earlier, they try to build a rapport to help the family grow, to nurture the children, to move a healthy family along.

What we see is a problem with where we are right now and what we would do if we had more resources available to us in Huron county is that we would look at providing more services for the children between zero and two years old. Right now, the public health office takes money from their budget and makes sure that they come into that house once a month, every month, as opposed to 13 times over two years, because too many things can happen when a child is at risk.

The second thing we'd like to do is to expand the program to age five. Those kids are at home with Mom or with their parents, and what happens is that no one could see that child from two until five. We need to make sure the community is involved in that child's daily life.

The third thing is that we would like to see more public health nurses involved, dieticians, so the betterment of health is being worked with.

Also, if we ever had the opportunity, we'd like to be able to help people when they're pregnant, to work on that prenatal stage, which really sets a child on a very good course.

I think our program is working. We have a number of consultants we can pull into the family to help them. Children's aid, public health, CPRI, hospitals, consumers, lactation consultants, people from Rural Response for Healthy Children, day cares - all of these people are working to ensure that our kids are safe and healthy in the community, and that's a very important aspect.

I'd like to thank two people in my community who I believe are doing a terrific job to set this program up with limited resources, and that's Marlene Price, from the public health office, and Jane Hoy, from Rural Response for Healthy Children. They've done a terrific job, and I know our program is going to be very good.

Thank you to the member for Wellington for such a fine proposal.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm very pleased this morning to stand in support of the resolution by Mr Arnott. I believe it's sound. The member for Huron likewise was supportive and gave some examples of some of the things that should be expanded, should be increased. But it seems to be quite obvious that some of the resources at the moment are not there, and I would assume that one of the motivations for Mr Arnott's resolution is that we are not doing enough at this stage.

That was clear. My colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich identified a task force that went around the province, in fact spoke to 70 different groups and individuals in places like Belleville, Barrie, Windsor, Fort Frances, Toronto, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, plus e-mails and faxes and letters and phone calls that were received when our party was looking at the whole issue of children. And what were some of the things we heard? We heard people from these groups say that children are not a priority for this government at this time.

Therefore, the resolution is in keeping with what we're picking up from parents and from those who spoke to us, that parents are having difficulty balancing their responsibilities at home and at work and, as a result, families are under tremendous stress. We heard that we're not doing enough to ensure the healthy development of children and their learning capacity. Finally, we heard about the unprecedented number of children suffering the effects of poverty, hunger, neglect and abuse. We've heard this being raised many times in question period, asking the government. We're well aware that the government has a minister without portfolio for children. I gather she's busy this morning; otherwise I'm sure she'd be with us, because I'm sure she'd want to hear the particular debate.

It seems to me, as my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich has suggested, that by placing children first you have a criterion by which you make decisions. You say, "What's the impact on children and how is this going to affect the support of children, the rearing of children, the protection of children?" As we know, that's got to be a primary investment, and heretofore that investment and that concern and priority, it seems to us, have not been the government's primary concern. It has been the economic bottom line.

I think more and more members now, though, as illustrated this morning in this House, have seen that if you focus only on economics, then the human dimension and those who are most vulnerable - and of course children don't vote and they don't have the same kind of capacity to debate, to raise their voices. All they can do is cry out. Do we hear them when they cry out? I think there's a growing groundswell throughout the province in all quarters that indeed we're not doing enough, that in fact we've damaged some of the systems we've had.

I would like to quote a few people who in the task force we had and First Steps said: "Children first as a primary principle is needed: What is important is that at each turn of the way, at each point of decision, we put the wellbeing and the emotional health of children at the central point of our concerns and endeavour."

This was Dr Brenda Wattie, the director of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

1140

The Canadian Mental Health Association of course is an organization with tremendous expertise and a knowledge of what is needed to provide a healthy environment for children, the supports for children and the impact on mental health. We're not only talking about the mental health of children here, of course; we're talking about the mental, physical and spiritual health and growth of children. We know that if we don't provide the nourishment, if we don't make the investment in the early years - the government has engaged Fraser Mustard as a world-renowned expert on child development. Fraser Mustard will tell you that we will cause unseen damage to children if we don't provide the nourishment, that the growth and development of children in their early years is extremely important. That's why junior kindergarten is extremely important. It's extremely important for those families who are squeezed and under pressure and are finding it difficult to spend the kind of time they would like to with their children and provide the resources available to help nurture children in the early years. That is another one.

Time is running out. I just want to say to Mr Arnott that I support the resolution, as our party does. We believe it's extremely important. We hope that following the passage of this today, there indeed there will be some lobbying internally to really impress upon the government that all members feel it's important to support children in their development.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to indicate my unqualified support for the member for Wellington's resolution calling for the expansion of the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program in Ontario. It's a welcome resolution and it's one that's refreshing coming from a member of a government that really isn't seen as having children as one of its main priorities.

We saw that exhibited in the speech from the throne last week. There was a lot of emphasis placed on how this government measures success. They talk about retail sales, consumer and business confidence, housing starts, shrinking welfare rolls, agricultural production, things like that. I think what we need to be focusing on more is that we measure prosperity in our economy by the impact it has on people, especially on children. I'd like to see measurements of success by seeing a decrease in the number of children living in poverty, for example, a decrease in the number of children who require the services of children's aid societies and of the courts. I believe that's how we should be measuring success in this province as well.

There was scant mention of what this government was going to do with respect to helping vulnerable children in the throne speech. There was mention of a Learning, Earning and Parenting initiative to encourage young, single parents to stay in school and complete their education. That was about the only mention of how this government plans to help children. I hope the member for Wellington's resolution is going to have an impact on the government's commitment to children and will increase and expand the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program.

A couple of weeks ago in Windsor we had a forum on child care, put on by the Canadian Union of Public Employees. We heard speaker after speaker - people from children's aid societies, child care workers, parents of autistic children - indicating the problems they were experiencing as a result of this government's cuts to children's programs. They mentioned specifically the impact that the reduction of social assistance benefits of 21.6% back in October 1995 had on them, and we see the impact of that in our own community.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees forums are going to be visiting other cities throughout Ontario, and I encourage people to attend those hearings and express their concerns about this government's initiatives as they relate to children.

We live in a very prosperous economy, and Windsor is one of those places that is doing very well. But at the same time we're seeing an increase in the use of food banks, especially by children. Why is that? That indicates to me there are some people who are benefiting by the improvements in this economy, and in increasing numbers there are people who aren't benefiting from that improved economy. Many times we see that it's children who are suffering the most from this government's initiatives.

I support the member's motion. I wish him luck in his efforts to get this government to expand the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I too am pleased to rise in support of Mr Arnott's private member's resolution. I am a firm believer in looking at programs that work and in building on programs that work, so I want to highlight some of the programs that work around these types of initiatives.

Mr Arnott referred to Hawaii's early intervention program. It's called the healthy start program. It's a voluntary program in Hawaii, which is surprising in that less than 1% of people actually take part in that program, even though it is voluntary. It has a success rate of 99% in preventing child abuse and neglect, which is pretty phenomenal. A three-year study of this program confirmed a great improvement in child development and parent-child relationships, as well as a reduction in the use of punitive discipline while virtually eliminating abuse, yet ensuring quick identification and early intervention in the few cases of abuse that do occur.

When parents learn effective parenting skills, it helps them to feel much more comfortable and at ease with their children; it takes away a lot of the stress they worry about and allows them to not only care for their children but enjoy caring for their children. For the babies, early intervention programs are of course invaluable, because the most critical brain development occurs in these early years.

In New Brunswick, they have an intervention program which helps expectant mothers who are at risk for health problems that could affect their own health and the health of their child. The intervention program got into full swing in 1994, so it's too early yet to evaluate the outcomes of that program. However, judging by statistics in the 1996-97 year, 97.7% of eligible expectant women voluntarily took part in the program. So, it would appear that it is serving a need in the community.

In New York state, in Elmira they have an early infancy project, which is considered one of the most thorough controlled studies of the home visitor model. The study reported a reduction in child abuse rates from 19% in the control group to 4% in the nurse-visited mothers. The report concluded that the program would pay for itself before the child even began school, because of reduced hospital costs from abuse, better nutrition in the family, less subsequent pregnancies and greater employability for the parent.

Closer to home, there's another example of an innovative prevention program. It's at the Helen Tufts Nursery School in Kingston. This school is a real example of being ahead of its time. It has had a program there since 1966 that looks at providing services to three- and four-year-olds from economically disadvantaged homes. One of the unique features of that particular nursery school is that it provides a bus which picks up the children to take them to the school and delivers them back home.

I want to draw your attention to an article that was in the Toronto Star earlier this week. I always like to bring forward anything that's happening in Hamilton. This particular article was written about the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program that's working in Hamilton. I want to quote Bonnie Bridle, who is the program manager with the Hamilton-Wentworth regional public health department, who states:

"We know that providing families with adequate support and access to resources very early in the game can have tremendous impacts on the health and wellbeing of children....

"Trudy Cooper, clinical manager of obstetrics for Hamilton Health Sciences Corp, says, `Healthy Babies, Healthy Children is about preventing problems, rather than intervening after there has already been a crisis.'"

I think we in this government agree that we need to look at programs that work. We need to develop those programs, because a child's early years lay the foundation for all that follows in their lives. Instead of spending money treating the consequences of child abuse or poor childhood outcomes, we can now tackle the problem where we should be tackling the problem, at its root, through early intervention, and help improve the lives of defenceless children.

I am very proud to support this resolution and I'm pretty confident and hopeful that everyone else in this House will.

1150

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I am very pleased to rise and lend my support as well to the resolution. It has been put forward by the member for Wellington, who is known for his compassion, particularly for those most vulnerable. I'm not surprised he would bring forward a recommendation that would call upon the Minister of Finance to give serious consideration to the extension of a program that is proving itself across this province.

The Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program is working well, but clearly what the member is identifying is the need to expand that program. It's a need now to recognize the importance of adding another building block, and I applaud his resolution.

The fact is that the current program is a sound investment in our children and in our province's future and I think we ought not to forget that. The program is part of the government's long-term commitment in developing an integrated system of effective services for vulnerable children which will increase and strengthen existing services for families and children. Therein lies the issue that has been addressed by the member for Huron and by my colleague from Hamilton West: the concern of extending this program within the fiscal capabilities of this province; beginning to recognize the importance of adding services that go beyond the age of two, that go perhaps to the age of five, that certainly begin to take advantage of some of the government's policies.

Let me remind us of nurse practitioners, beginning to take advantage of their great skills across this province in assessment and in interdiction, to in fact begin to bring together the agencies, to coordinate the services, so that those both in the prenatal condition and in the postnatal condition are in fact receiving the kind of care and attention they rightfully should expect.

I am very pleased to lend my full support and endorsement to this resolution. I am pleased to hear what seems to be unanimous support of that and I hope that will be the case.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I would just like to congratulate the member for Wellington for pressing for this idea. Also, concomitant with and parallel to is the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council's $3.1-million investment in preschool children's language programming.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Wellington, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Arnott: I really sincerely appreciate the comments I've heard from my colleagues in the House. I want to thank the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, the member for Huron, the member for Ottawa Centre, the member for Windsor-Riverside, the member for Hamilton West, the member for High Park-Swansea, and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for his brief contribution. I really appreciate the support and want to thank you sincerely for that.

I want to respond to a couple of points in the brief time that I have. Responding to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, she listed a litany of what she perceives to be spending cuts that the government has had to undertake. Certainly we have had to reduce expenditures in quite a number of key areas. But we know and we are encouraged by the fact that our funding partners have done a terrific job of trying to do better for less. We've challenged them to do that and they've been up to the challenge to a large degree. Also, we are motivated by a desire to save those important programs, and certainly that's our primary objective with reducing them.

I want to respond also to the comments of the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I appreciated the report that came out by the Liberal caucus. I don't want to taunt you with it but it's here, the Report of the McGuinty Task Force on Children, which I researched. I want you to know, and perhaps remind you, that I brought forward this resolution on Healthy Babies, Healthy Children last December. It was scheduled for debate the last day that the House sat, but of course we were pre-empted for government business. I spoke to your leader to wish him a merry Christmas outside the chamber afterwards and he said, "This is the kind of thing that we support." Then I was pleased to see two months later it was included in your report, so I want to thank you very much for that. I can't say it was my idea, but certainly I appreciate the support that you have shown.

I want to thank also Dr Doug Kittle for being here this morning from our Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Health Unit and to thank him for his advice and his support. I also acknowledge Diane Bewick from the Public Health Nursing Management of Ontario for her presence and her support, and also acknowledge the great help that I received from my executive assistant, Joanna Willis. Thank you, Joanna, for your help.

Thank you all members of the House for being here today. I appreciate your support.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (DRIVERS' LICENCES OF CERTAIN SCHOOL PUPILS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PERMIS DE CONDUIRE DE CERTAINS ÉLÈVES)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with the first ballot item in the name of Mr Wettlaufer, ballot item number 5.

Mr Wettlaufer has moved second reading of Bill 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 95(j), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'd like to submit that the bill get submitted to the justice committee.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 6, standing in the name of Mr Arnott.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1328.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It is now time for oral questions.

Interjection.

The Speaker: We made an agreement yesterday.

Interjection: Is there agreement on unanimous consent?

The Speaker: I thought we had it yesterday.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Mr Speaker, I believe there is an all-party agreement for one speaker from each party to make a brief statement on Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I understood there was consent to begin with the unanimous consent. Is it also my understanding that would be followed by statements and then by questions?

The Speaker: I never know of these unanimous consents. What we agreed to yesterday was that question period would begin the routine proceedings and then we'd go through them as normal but question period would be the first order of business.

This request for unanimous consent: Agreed? Agreed. The unanimous consent will take place for the three speakers, and then we'll go directly into question period.

Apparently we have another one after that.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): There are two.

The Speaker: Right. So never mind.

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. This government, like every government since Sexual Assault Prevention Month was first recognized in 1988, is committed to stopping the violence and to creating an environment where women are free of sexual assault.

As my colleagues across Canada know, it is a difficult but necessary struggle. It is a struggle that our government, like others across the country, continues, community by community, to work to stop the violence.

The costs for victims of sexual assault and their families are impossible to comprehend. Sexual assault has an enormous impact on society as a whole. For women who have suffered the pain, whose potential has been restricted, whose independence has been diminished, we must commit ourselves to stopping the violence. For crisis intervention workers, the front-line workers in shelters, police, counsellors, nurses, physicians, for neighbours and indeed for whole communities, the effects of this violence are both long-term and far-reaching.

The statistics speak for themselves. According to Statistics Canada, only six of every 100 sexual assaults are reported to police. Some 60% of Canadian women are afraid to walk alone in their communities. One in five teenaged girls has experienced abuse in a dating relationship. Between March 1996 and April 1997 the Ontario Human Rights Commission received 225 sexual harassment complaints. These statistics are appalling. They represent conditions in Ontario which are simply not acceptable.

Whether we are political leaders, professionals, business people, neighbours or friends, each one of us, individually and together, must take responsibility for the prevention of violence. We must continue to work towards safe homes, safe communities and safe workplaces. We must overcome violence aimed at women and their children.

To succeed, we must educate our young people. Just as each new generation must be educated on the dangers of drinking and driving, each new generation of children must be made aware of violence issues in terms they can appreciate and understand.

To reach out to our young people, we have achieved a number of successes with our private community and public sector partners. Last November we launched two anti-violence television productions for young Ontarians. With our Partners for Change network we produced Peace Breaks on TVO and You Oughta Know: Teens Talk About Teen Dating and Abuse on YTV. Just this morning I was informed that You Oughta Know has been nominated for a Golden Sheaf Award at the Yorkton International Film and Video Festival in the education category.

We also have implemented and expanded The Joke's Over, an educational tool to teach kids that sexual harassment is not okay and that it can escalate into sexual assault. These projects will ensure that awareness and prevention activities touch and educate every age group, every part of our population, and we must work hard together to make certain that the resources we have developed together are used appropriately and in a timely manner in our schools.

My colleague the member for London South, as minister with responsibility for women's issues, stated in May 1993: "It may take time before we see the results for which we are hoping because it takes time to dispel the myths; but dispel these myths we must, and to ensure the safety of women and children and to take us one step closer to equality in this society we must continue to dedicate ourselves to education around sexual assault."

I want to pay tribute to past work done to create a foundation in this province for violence prevention initiatives and also to pay tribute to the work that we have done, including:

A series of public education campaigns including brochures on date rape and sexual assault in 20 languages; training manuals and workshops; award-winning television, radio and print public service campaigns to educate the public on this issue; passing the Victims' Bill of Rights in 1995, identifying and protecting specific rights for victims of violent crime, more than half of whom are women; developing a Partners Against Crime strategy to develop an infrastructure of partnerships of all key stakeholders to target serious crime and crime prevention - I might add, with the assistance of our former Solicitor General - and the strategy includes grants to communities and front-line policing, partnership with the private sector and community, establishment of the Ontario Partners Against Crime Council and the use of technology for information sharing problem-solving; establishing a victim support line to provide around-the-clock, person-to-person referral to local victim services and updates on an offender's status; expanding the victim-witness assistance program and the victim crisis assistance and referral service through the victims' justice fund which was established to support victims of crime, along with the support of my friend the Attorney General.

In addition to approximately $100 million annually our government invests in programs to address and prevent violence against women and their children, in 1997 we announced $27 million over four years in new funding for programs and services to break the cycle of violence against women and children.

In addition, our Agenda for Action strategic framework includes a number of innovative initiatives. We've implemented services at six sexual assault treatment centres to ensure victims of domestic violence have access to emergency hospital-based medical care and counselling. We continue to work on a training package for children's aid society workers to help them deal more effectively with children who have witnessed domestic violence. We've delivered French-language assault prevention training for teachers and parents in five communities across this province.

We've implemented eight new domestic violence courts. Police, crown attorneys and victim-witness assistance staff are trained on the issues of domestic violence, and a mandatory male batterer program is a component of each court. We've supported 19 male batterer programs and eliminated the backlog. We've increased availability of emergency legal aid services for abused women. This year we supported 36 new community-based violence prevention projects through the Ontario women's directorate priority project funding program, and we represented approximately, in this instance, 136 innovative partnerships to educate on the issue of violence against women and their children.

There are many initiatives within our Agenda for Action for education and prevention, including establishing 47 new school-based service projects in school boards to ensure children who witness domestic violence receive appropriate care through the schools, and we have much more to do; developing and delivering a series of teaching tools to assist ESL teachers in integrating violence prevention education activities in our ESL classrooms; developing public education campaigns with private sector partners to promote violence prevention.

In closing, I would like to share with you the comments of Dianne Poole, the Liberal MPP for Eglinton, who said in May 1994: "One of the very encouraging factors in combating the myths surrounding sexual assault is that the members of this House treat it as a serious problem and in a non-partisan way. I think this is vitally important, that we in this House set the standard and work together to make a difference."

1340

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I willingly join with my colleagues on behalf of my caucus in the recognition of Sexual Assault Prevention Month. I believe this recognition is important because it focuses our attention on the need to make every effort to raise the awareness of the continuance of sexual assault, sexual assault which, taken to the extreme, too often means violent rape and even death but which is intolerable in any way, in any form, in any place.

I hope we are making some gains in our awareness of the realities of sexual assault. I'm not sure that we are making any real progress in its prevention.

Rape crisis centres report that their statistics are going up. This is hopefully because more women are seeking help and not because there are more incidents. The problem is that we just don't know, because for too long women have been afraid to come forward, afraid the support will not be there for them if they do.

Although there has been an increase in women coming into rape crisis centres, there are fewer women reporting their attacks to the police. They are increasingly concerned about how they will be dealt with in the justice system. Challenges to the rape shield law and to the law that protects the confidentiality of sexual counselling records have heightened those concerns.

Let us hope that the Supreme Court clarifies the constitutionality of these laws quickly and positively in the support of justice for victims. We cannot hope to prevent violent sexual assault unless it is treated as a crime and is punished, but the crime cannot be punished unless there is a conviction, and there can't be convictions unless women are able to go to court with confidence that they won't be battered there too. Nor can we prevent sexual assault unless we understand the ways in which sexual assault in some forms and in some places is condoned.

The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres has asked the provincial government to declare the first week in June as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week in order to focus attention on this very serious issue. This was asked for last year and didn't happen. I hope this year there will be a positive response, because here too we need to raise consciousness. We need to be able to identify sexual harassment, to define it, to recognize its causes as well as its manifestations. But to do this, if we're to be able to do this, women have got to be able to report their experiences of sexual harassment, and they won't do this unless they know they are going to be taken serious and unless they know they will not be punished for speaking out.

There was a study done for the federal government that was reported last November that states there are insufficient police resources to investigate criminal harassment cases and that this in turn leads to weak depositions in court, and as a result more than 60% of harassment cases are withdrawn by the crown and 75% of those convicted receive suspended sentences or probation.

Having raised that concern, let me recognize that I'm confident that all of us in this House do indeed take the issue of sexual assault seriously. I know that some of the small amount of money that has been given to the minister responsible for women's issues to address all of the issues of concern to women has been directed towards rape crisis centres. I am concerned, and I won't belabour it today, that those funds are not adequate and that they are not flowing to community-based rape crisis centres that are providing such important support to women in a non-institutional setting.

The bottom line - and I agree with the minister on this - is that we are not doing enough, either as a government or as a society. We're not doing enough when 39% of Canadian women experience at least one incident of sexual assault after the age of 16. We're not doing enough when 83% of women report that they're afraid to walk alone to their cars and 76% report that they are worried about using public transportation after dark. I wonder what has happened to our focused efforts to take back the night and to keep our streets safe for women. Surely we're not guilty of saying that we've done all that and we shouldn't have to keep working at it.

We're not doing enough when 80% of women with a disability will be victims of sexual abuse in their lifetime and when senior women are at higher risk of violence than men simply because they are women. We're not doing enough when women are prevented from accessing support services because of disability or language limitations. We're not doing enough when there is an increase in sexual assaults involving rape drugs, which make women even more vulnerable and more readily victimized. And we're not doing enough when women can't be tested for the presence of these drugs, which must be done within 12 hours, unless they are prepared first to lay charges.

We need to do more. We need to do more to encourage victims to break the silence, and we need to do more to provide support when they do. We need to do more to understand what is happening, and we need to do more to understand the dynamics that allow it to happen. We need to be open and honest about sexual assault in our communities, and we need to commit ourselves to policies and actions that confirm our willingness to deal with the reality of violence against women. We need to be clear not just in our words but in our actions that we will not tolerate abuse.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I am pleased to represent my caucus this afternoon on Sexual Assault Prevention Month. I attended a press conference this morning that was put on by the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres. The president, Barbara MacQuarrie, and the vice-president, Rhonda Roffey, held this press conference to declare the month of May as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

They focused this morning on three areas that they talked about as new challenges facing them this year. One of them both of you, I believe, alluded to, and that is that the statistics at the rape crisis centres continue to go up and the number of women who are choosing to report to the police has decreased.

"Women have clearly lost faith in the justice system. Not surprising in a year that saw challenges to both Bills C-46 and C-49, two bills created to protect victims of sexual assault from revictimization within the justice system."

That is a direct quote from the press release they put out this morning.

A second concern they raised was, and again I quote, "Centres report an increase in reports of sexual assaults involving `rape drugs.' Rape crisis centres across the province have been educating women and service providers about support to victims and prevention."

Let me say that we have been hearing for some time now about these new kinds of drugs that are being used to sedate young women who are then raped. What we are hearing today from the women who gave the press conference is very serious. It's something that, although it may be more a federal responsibility and I'd like to see the federal government act on this, this government should look into. Women are saying that in some locations they are unable to get tested to see if this drug was used on them unless they're willing beforehand to say they'll press charges, before they know exactly what's going on. That is unacceptable.

The third issue raised this morning was sexual harassment in the workplace, which you didn't really go into very much today, Minister. I was hoping that you would take the recommendation, which I understand almost happened last year but didn't, and announce it today. What is being asked for here is that the first week of June be deemed Sexual Harassment Awareness Week.

You may know and the whole House may know where this came from. We have all heard in the media over the past while about Theresa Vince, who was murdered in 1996 by a harasser who, after he killed her, killed himself. This woman, Theresa Vince, worked at Sears and had complained and sought help and advice and didn't get it. Eventually, she was murdered. That is an extreme case of what can happen in the workplace to a woman when she is being harassed. It happened. There was an inquest and there were recommendations which came out of this inquest. One of the recommendations was that Chatham proclaim that week as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week. I would recommend, as the Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres and others are recommending, that the week be proclaimed as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week.

The problem of sexual harassment in the workplace is a very serious problem. It permeates a woman's life completely when this happens on a day-to-day basis in the workplace. If there are people here who don't quite understand or don't take it seriously, I would suggest that you always put your sister or your mother into the position of the person, not just a faceless woman but somebody you love and care about in that position. I would like to see all members of this House ask the Harris government to proclaim this week Sexual Harassment Awareness Week.

1350

One of the things I enjoyed this morning at the press conference was a letter read out, from Men Walking Against Male Violence. I'm going to read this letter to you. This is from a group in Dunnville, Ontario, and it reads:

"Men Walking Against Male Violence wish to add our voices with the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres in raising sexual assault awareness.

"We wish to stand in solidarity with the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, the women who support and assist survivors of sexual assault, who courageously resist, and speak publicly of the casualties, the numbers and the dominant sexist culture that allow it.

"Men Walking Against Male Violence cannot be present at this press conference, because from April 29th to May 15th, we are maintaining a visible street presence in two dozen communities. Between Windsor and Ottawa, thousands of women and men are protesting together in these walks, challenging male violence and male opposition to women's equality.

"In solidarity for justice

"Dean McKay, for Men Walking Against Male Violence."

I think this is a good opportunity for the male members in the Legislature to find out if there are walks happening in their own ridings, to get involved with Men Walking Against Male Violence. There is the white ribbon campaign. There are more and more men walking together, working together to walk side by side with women in challenging the dominant culture, which I would say sometimes promotes violence against women. It is time that men started to stand up and walk side by side with women and fight together to stop this insidious kind of violence against women.

I would like to end by thanking the minister today for her words. I believe it is an issue we all need to work together on, and I am committed to work with her and with the government to do everything we can in this House as legislators to stop violence against women in Ontario.

ISRAELI INDEPENDENCE COMMEMORATION

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for one representative of each party to speak in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the State of Israel.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Harnick: We have recently observed in the Jewish community and around the world Yom Ha'Shoah, Holocaust Memorial Day, a day on which we remember the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis during the Second World War. The sufferings and the testimonies of Holocaust survivors are an affirmation of the eternity of the Jewish people and the greatness of their spirit. There is no greater testimony than the birth of a nation. Israel is a nation born out of the shadow of the Holocaust.

In 1897, Theodor Herzl dreamed of a Jewish homeland, a country where Jews could live without fear and without the constant presence of anti-Semitism.

The fundamental mission of the original Zionists was to create a secular country where Jews could lead peaceful lives. Fifty years after the rebirth of the nation, that aspiration has not yet been fully realized. While the lives of Israelis are far from what we would consider normal, we all should pause and recognize the miraculous accomplishments of this tiny and fiercely democratic nation.

In a historical perspective, it has existed for merely a blink of an eye, yet Israel has blossomed. In 1947 the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion officially proclaimed the new State of Israel and became its first Prime Minister. Despite five wars, enemies on its border, massive immigration, terrorist attacks and the scrutiny of the world, Israel continues to astound.

Palestine began with 650,000 Jews. Today it is a flourishing nation, a home to 4.5 million Jews and one million Israeli Arabs, with one of the highest standards of living in the world. In the past nine years alone, Israel has absorbed some 750,000 Russian immigrants.

It is the people of Israel who never cease to amaze. Swamps and deserts were turned into arable land, giant strides have been made in high technology, and Israeli culture is a mosaic, rich in the history of native Israelis and immigrants from all over the world.

The people of Ontario have long maintained strong ties to Israel, with thousands of Ontarians visiting Israel every year. Historically, individual Ontarians have been responsible for providing Israel with both economic and moral support when they have needed it. Now Israel is contributing to the world economy and to that of Ontario. Earlier this year, an Ontario company, Canadian Highways International, was awarded the contract to build a superhighway across Israel. Although the country itself is not much bigger than the greater Toronto area - in fact Israel can fit into Ontario 51 times - it is none the less a huge undertaking and demonstrates that Israel is rapidly maturing as a country and as an economic force.

In January of this year I had the great honour of being in Israel to attend the Fifth Annual Conference of Jewish Ministers and Members of Parliament. Along with over 70 representatives of 23 countries, I had the opportunity to learn more about current Israeli affairs from leading politicians, civil servants and Israelis. The experience, as always, for me was truly a memorable one.

In conclusion, to quote liberally from this week's editorial in the Canadian Jewish News, "After 2,000 years, the Jews have returned to Israel, to where they always were....

"Though it is halting and frustrating, the current process of reconciliation between Jews and Palestinians is irreversible, and we pray that it will ultimately evolve into an accommodation of mutual dignity and trust, and security for the continuation of health and prosperity for the State of Israel."

Chag Sameach.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): In the Jewish calendar, the fifth day of the month of Iyar 5708 coincided with Friday, May 14, 1948, in the western calendar and was a landmark moment that changed Jewish history forever. A dream that had passed from one generation to another for almost 2,000 years had become a reality. On that day David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, announced the Declaration of Independence with the words "We hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael, to be named the State of Israel."

Today we celebrate Israel's 50th birthday, and the official motto of the celebration, "Together in Pride - Together in Hope" are sentiments that we can all share, for Israel inspires both.

I can tell you from a personal point of view that those sentiments were really put to the test in my own personal life. In 1985 my daughter Kathy, my youngest, announced that she would be going to Israel to study at the Hebrew University for one year, and off she went. What was supposed to be a one-year sojourn turned into a six-year study program at Hebrew University where she graduated with a double degree in English literature and political science.

My wife and I shared in the pride that a daughter of ours had enough commitment to go to Israel and to really become part of what has become an amazing social experience. But included in that pride was the constant hope, as we got reports out of Israel of random terrorist attacks - one bomb explosion in a bus shelter right outside her university residence - that she would not become a victim. So this was something that I truly lived.

What is happening is that Israel, as a young country, has endured five wars, surrounded on all sides by sworn enemies, constantly living in fear of terrorist attacks and still managing to absorb massive immigration that has taken the population from an initial 600,000 to today's nearly six million citizens. They have absorbed 750,000 Jews from the former Soviet Union and another 80,000 from Ethiopia. Israel has not only survived but has performed what can only be described as a modern miracle.

Israel has developed a thriving economy, attained international recognition in science and the arts, in technology and agriculture, has made peace with two of its neighbours, Egypt and Jordan, and all the while remained the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East.

1400

Israel stands not only as a bastion of democracy in the Middle East but as a vital bond between its citizens and the Diaspora, the Jews around the world. It is this bond that gives the Jewish people the world over strength in the present and confidence in the future. The historical union of a land without people and a people without land has provided a focus for one people to be united in their faith, proud of their history and mindful of their shared destiny.

In spite of all of these accomplishments, there are many challenges still facing the State of Israel. Tonight, as we join in Toronto's celebration of the Night of a Lifetime, a celebration which will be the largest of its kind outside of Israel, it is well to remember that we must continue our vigilance. There are those who are still disseminating racist and anti-Semitic material, and we have just witnessed the vandalism of 43 headstones at the B'nai Israel cemetery in St Catharines.

Our wish is that, together in pride and together in hope, Israel will continue its progress into the next 50 years in peace and security. I am sure that all of us here assembled would wish to join in wishing those celebrating Israel's 50th anniversary a hearty mazel tov.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I am pleased to stand today on behalf of the Ontario New Democratic Party caucus to mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. I would like to reflect on the achievement of one dream and the hope of realizing another.

Today we join in celebrating that in 1948 out of the horror of the holocaust there came into being a Jewish state, the State of Israel. This was indeed the fulfilment of a dream held by people who had been living homeless and scattered to the four corners of the earth for over two millennia, the dream of a place they could call their own, a haven and a point of reference for every Jew on earth.

Over the last 50 years Israel has become renowned for its scientific, cultural and social achievements, and we rejoice today in those achievements. But there is still another dream that has not been fulfilled, to create a place were people could live in peace and security without oppression and violence.

An essential ingredient has been missing, a just and lasting peace throughout the region and a peace that recognizes the legitimate concerns of the State of Israel for peace with security and a peace that also recognizes the legitimate claims of the Palestinian people.

Various UN resolutions have addressed this very important issue; the Oslo accord marked an historic leap forward and an opportunity for peace. Our wish today is that all leaders find the courage to make this work.

The history of the Jewish people over the centuries gives us hope that there will be a time when all people of the Middle East can live together in peace and security. On the 50th anniversary of the founding of Israel, we stand in solidarity with those people of good conscience and goodwill, Jews and Arabs, who see peace as the ultimate goal in securing the dream of the Jewish people. We extend wishes of peace and hope, Hatikva, to the people of Israel.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am seeking unanimous consent of this Legislature today that we conduct an emergency debate on how to extend compensation to all victims infected by hepatitis C and to reopen discussions with the federal government in that regard.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the official opposition is seeking unanimous consent for what you heard. Is it agreed? I heard a no.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We heard the Minister of Health today indicate that the government is in favour of extending compensation -

The Speaker: You know something? With great respect, it's a point of order you're standing on and it doesn't sound like a point of order.

Mr Hampton: I'm asking unanimous consent.

The Speaker: The same, okay. The leader of the third party -

Mr Hampton: This is the unanimous consent I'm asking:

That the Ontario Legislature support the extension on compassionate grounds of the existing compensation program for all the victims of contaminated blood who are not covered by the said program;

That the Ontario Legislature support the initiative taken April 29, 1998, by the Quebec National Assembly, demand that the federal government follow up on this resolution and encourage the other provinces to approach the federal government in the same manner.

I'm asking unanimous consent today.

The Speaker: You're asking unanimous consent for that debate?

Mr Hampton: Yes.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for the debate? Agreed? I heard a "no."

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. I want to raise with you this issue of compensation for hepatitis C victims in Ontario, and indeed the nation, in which your government is obviously a very important party.

I've had the opportunity to speak with many Ontarians and my sense from them is that there's an overwhelming desire to compensate all those who were poisoned by the official blood system with hepatitis C.

We should understand the record here. Your government originally had no intention of participating in this discussion. You were dragged to the table kicking and screaming. It's my submission that Ontario is not paying its fair share in the current deal.

Quite simply, Deputy Premier, will you agree to reopen the deal to include all victims and increase Ontario's compensation as required?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Certainly not to belittle the seriousness of the problem with respect to hepatitis C victims, I beg to differ with the leader of the official opposition that the province of Ontario had to be dragged anywhere. My recollection is that the province of Ontario took the lead in including haemophiliacs in the whole discussion and negotiation with the federal government and the provinces. The province of Ontario has certainly not dragged its feet on this issue.

I believe that the provinces are doing significant participation with respect to hepatitis C victims. Speaking for the province of Ontario alone - but I presume other provinces have similar numbers that they are spending helping victims of hepatitis C - it's in the neighbourhood of $700 million, the ongoing care that Ontario -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I beg to differ, of course, Deputy Premier. Our province has not distinguished itself in this matter. Originally, your minister, Jim Wilson, refused to sit down and talk about any kind of compensation, to even consider it.

Let's understand the nature of this current compensation arrangement for hep C. The federal government has led the effort and has contributed $800 million, while the provinces are paying in total just $300 million. When AIDS and HIV victims of the blood system were compensated, the federal and provincial shares were almost equal. This is a phoney economy for Ontario.

We can't, and should not, escape our responsibility. A huge number of those hepatitis C victims are living here in this province. We have a responsibility to assist, to sit down at the table with the feds to review this matter and to come up with a better package. Once again, Deputy Premier, will you do that?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, there was an agreement, as the leader of the opposition knows, that the provinces made with respect to the federal government with respect to hepatitis C victims from 1986 to 1990. The provinces put in some money; the federal government put in some money. That dealt with that particular agreement and that aspect of the problem.

There are other people out there, I would quite readily recognize, prior to 1986, who need some help, and I understand the province of Ontario this morning has been in discussion with other provinces with respect to this. The provinces' - I'm using the term collectively - point is that they have ongoing costs with respect to hepatitis C victims which, over a space of time, for the province of Ontario are approaching three quarters of a billion dollars.

The leader of the official opposition might want to look at the Deputy Prime Minister's comments yesterday in Ottawa with respect to the fact that the federal government should indeed be looking at further assistance on behalf of the federal government.

1410

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure if the Deputy Premier is aware, but today your Minister of Health on the radio was quoted as being open to reopening discussion regarding the compensation of hepatitis C victims. That means she believes that the matter ought to be revisited. She believes that the federal government has a continuing responsibility in this regard.

What I need to know from you now, Deputy Premier, is whether or not you feel that our province has a continuing responsibility, whether we have to belly up to the bar now and put more money forward. That's what this is all about. It's one thing to leave Allan Rock out there swinging in the wind, it's another thing for us to assume our responsibility.

My question is, do you or do you not feel that Ontario has a responsibility to put up more money to help hepatitis C victims and to sit down with the federal government and to come up with a better package?

Hon Mr Eves: The province of Ontario is indeed recognizing the ongoing assistance for hepatitis C victims. I just told him that we're spending in the neighbourhood of three quarters of a billion dollars as an ongoing commitment to these victims. If you want to talk about the federal government's role in this, by the way, you might have talked to one of your 101 Liberal colleagues in Ottawa, all of whom supported closing the deal and closing the door on hepatitis C victims. You might also want to talk to your federal government, which reduced health care funding to the province of Ontario by $2.2 billion. You might also want to talk to your federal government, which this year has a reserve fund of $3 billion that it's not spending. You might also want to talk to your federal government about spending $1.2 billion on helicopters that they said they wouldn't spend.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order. Also, member for York South, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please.

New question; leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I'll just take it from that answer that the Deputy Premier is no longer prepared to consider helping in that regard when it comes to our hepatitis C victims living in Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, come to order, please.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Yes, by all means.

The Speaker: I don't want to debate. Just come to order.

HOME CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a different question now, Deputy Premier. I have a question about your government's headlong rush into privatized home care in Ontario. Ontarians should know that you changed the rules a short time ago so that shortly 100% of the home care in Ontario could be delivered by the private sector.

What I need to know is how far down that path you're prepared to go. In particular, would you ever consider giving a contract for home care here in Ontario to an American company under investigation for failing to provide adequate care and for health care fraud, also under investigation by organizations like the FBI, the US Department of Justice and the health departments of several US states? Would you ever consider letting a company like this care for Ontario's seniors?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the leader of the official opposition, I'm not familiar with the particulars of the question he asked.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: I might add that the Minister of Health fully expected to be here today but was called away at the last minute on a family emergency. I say quite sincerely to the member for Renfrew, I would think twice before I commented before I knew the facts about her absence here today.

I would like to take that question under advisement, or I'd be prepared to allow the leader of the official opposition, if other members would, to stand that question down and ask a different question if he'd prefer.

Mr McGuinty: I don't want to stand this question down. We're going to basic health care policy in this province. I want to give you some of the details now, Deputy Premier. I want to tell you about Olsten Corp. That's the largest private home care organization in the US. That company is currently operating in seven Ontario cities and is just about to sign a contract to operate in Windsor.

Do you know one of the things they've done? They've been found, in the state of Washington, pursuant to a statement of charges - these are charges, now. These charges are drawn from absence or failure to provide adequate care. Here are a couple of examples. One patient was to receive daily glucose and insulin injections for a two-month period. On four days, three of them successive, no visits were made by Olsten staff. Another example: Although the physician was to be notified if the patient's blood pressure fell outside specified parameters, the patient's blood pressure was recorded -

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

Mr McGuinty: - on only five of 14 visits over a two-week period.

Are you aware of these allegations, Deputy Premier, and do you consent to having that company -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mr Eves: I'd like to refer this supplementary to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of seniors, who apparently has some knowledge of the issue.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I want to advise the honourable member opposite that Ontario has one of the highest standards for monitoring of home care services on the continent. It's a service record that we're very proud of.

He and his own party will know that while they were in government they left a system in this province to a patchwork of service delivery without high standards of performance, which is now today in this province under this government being monitored very carefully. We have put in place a community care access system of 43 centres, with citizens of Ontario managing these boards and supervising the high-quality nursing care that's being delivered to half a million seniors in this province.

I want to assure the member opposite that in no way is this program being operated as it was under the Peterson era. The standards under the Harris government are much higher, and seniors are aware of that.

Mr McGuinty: I take it, then, from the minister that he is aware of this company, aware of the allegations of wrongdoing in the United States, aware of the specific charges, aware that they're operating here in Ontario and aware that they're about to sign a contract to deliver home care services in Windsor. I take it from all of that that he's aware of that and he has decided that notwithstanding those allegations and those problems they're experiencing to the south of us, it's perfectly all right for this company to carry on business in Ontario and to look after our seniors, our parents and our grandparents.

I just want to acquaint the minister with one thing: President Clinton has decided to place a moratorium on the expansion of privatized home care in his country. He's doing it because of the problems they're encountering there. You don't understand what's happening with your headlong rush into privatized health care in Ontario.

I'm going to ask you once again, Minister, do you condone the operation of this company in our province in delivering home care to our seniors?

Hon Mr Jackson: The member opposite appears to be the only one in this House who is unaware of what is going on in terms of home care over the last 15 years in this province. I want to remind the member opposite -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Jackson: Today in Canada over $2 billion is being spent in home care, and $1 billion of it is being spent in this province. We have one of the highest standards of access and one of the highest standards of quality-assured delivery by thousands of nursing professionals in this province.

There are thousands of nurses, nurse practitioners and other health care professionals providing competent, compassionate care all across this province. You are drawing into question the quality of the contribution of these mostly women workers in this province of Ontario. You should be aware that when your government was in power, you awarded six contracts -

Interjections.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You don't even know about it. Just say you don't know about it. We'll give you the information. Just say you don't know about it. Don't try to BS your way around this.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa Centre, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Patten: My comment, "Baloney sauce"? I'll withdraw it.

The Speaker: I didn't hear it that way, and I don't think anyone else did either. Thank you.

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to remind the member opposite that when he was spending one third of what we're spending today, his government awarded six home care contracts to Olsten; that under the NDP they awarded three contracts to this company, when there was no monitoring mechanism. This government is proud of the additional half a billion dollars that we are committing to home care in this province, and the VON in this province is providing more service today in Ontario than it was a year ago. That's the system we're building in Ontario.

1420

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I will direct my question to the Deputy Premier. We all know the pain and suffering the victims of Canada's tainted blood system have had to endure. We all know that those victims have been waiting for many years for news on compensation. I and my colleagues know that when we were the government of Ontario our position was that we were going to follow the recommendations of the Krever inquiry.

My question for you today is, why has your government signed an agreement with the federal Liberal government which does not follow the recommendations of the Krever inquiry and which excludes 20,000 to 30,000 victims of tainted blood? Why did you sign that agreement with the federal Liberal government?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I think everybody appreciates the seriousness of the situation with respect to victims of hepatitis C. All provinces, including Ontario, signed an agreement, as you know, with respect to hepatitis C victims after 1986, from 1986 to the 1990 period.

All provinces also, including Ontario - and I indicated this in response to the leader of the official opposition - have been discussing this morning their ongoing help - including Quebec, I might add - to the victims prior to 1986. That help is quite substantial, quite frankly; it is in the billions of dollars. As I said, for Ontario alone we are looking at about three quarters of a billion dollars.

We are urging the federal government now to assume its responsibility in these matters as well. I believe we have the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday indicating he believes the federal government should be looking at this. I might add that Ontario, along with other provinces, concurs.

Mr Hampton: The now Minister of Health in Ontario told the sufferers of hepatitis C prior to the federal-provincial deal being worked out on February 11, told Hemophilia Ontario, that we would see all infected hemophiliacs being compensated. That is what the now Minister of Health told Hemophilia Ontario. Yet the agreement your government signed with the federal Liberal government does not live up to that. The agreement you signed runs completely contrary to what the now Minister of Health said to Hemophilia Ontario.

I ask that we put a motion before the House today and that we debate that motion so you'll be able to take that to the federal government. Why don't we do that, Minister? Why don't we get to work on this right away and ask the federal Liberal government to reopen the book?

Hon Mr Eves: I am not going to respond, nor should I, on behalf of the Minister of Health. She knows what she said, I don't, and I am not about to respond. She can respond for herself when she is back in her place.

With respect to the second aspect of your question, I would suggest the House leaders discuss this issue the way House leaders discuss the business of the House at any time. However, I do want you to know, as I said in response to your first question, that the province of Ontario is indeed taking the issue seriously, that there have been discussions this morning among all provinces, including the province of Quebec, as to what further help can be given to hepatitis C victims, especially those prior to 1986.

Mr Hampton: Deputy Premier, you are the one who ought to talk to the Minister of Health, because - this is a quote. She said today, on a very influential Toronto radio station, "We are prepared today to support the motion that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly." Then she goes on to say, "I will be writing a letter to the federal government indicating our support for the motion and encouraging them," the federal government, "that the program be extended to all of those people" - "all of those people" meaning the people who have been left out.

What I have just tried to put on the floor of this Legislature is a motion, a motion that would allow us to support what your Minister of Health has just asked for, a motion that would allow your Minister of Health to go back to the federal government and say that 20,000 to 30,000 people are being left out by this compensation package.

Will your government agree to bring on a debate on this motion today so that we can deal with this?

Hon Mr Eves: As I indicated earlier in a response to the leader of the official opposition, the Minister of Health was called away at the last minute today before question period to deal with an emergency family matter. She is not here to respond to what she said today, allegedly, on behalf of the leader of the third party. I'm quite prepared to take that part of his question under advisement and report back or have the minister report back.

With respect to the second aspect of his question, as I said in my previous answer, these matters are scheduled by House leaders. I'd suggest that's the appropriate course to be followed in this instance as well.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question; leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: My next question is also to the Deputy Premier. I would just say to the Deputy Premier that we're prepared to offer support to your Minister of Health, yet your government for some reason doesn't want that support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question: Deputy Premier, your Minister of Health announced yesterday that you were finally going to start putting some money back into the health care system. As we looked at the details of the announcement, you're essentially saying you're going to put $150 million back into long-term care. The problem with the announcement is that it ignores the fact that over the last three years you have taken out of hospitals and out of the health care system $1 billion on an annual basis, and now you're going to put back in $150 million a year.

Minister, if you've taken out $1 billion on an annual basis and you're going to put back $150 million on an annual basis, can you tell me how that's going to get us more beds and more spaces? How does $150 million in get us more than $1 billion being taken out?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I can say to the leader of the third party unequivocally that we have not taken money out of the health care system. As a matter of fact, we are spending a record amount on health care in Ontario this year. We have made significant reinvestments in the health care system. In last year's budget alone, we announced $2.5 billion of reinvestments in the health care system.

Mr Hampton: I'll narrow the issues for the Deputy Premier. What you've done is that you've cut hospitals by over $600 million a year. That has meant thousands of hospital beds. It has meant the layoffs of thousands of nurses and other health care workers. You've clearly done that. Elsewhere in the health care system, you've taken out $400 million on an annual basis. It's true that you did put some money back in, for the purpose of paying severance pay to nurses who've been laid off.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock, please.

Minister?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the announcement the minister and the Premier made earlier this week talks about a reinvestment of $1.2 billion in seniors' and long-term care in Ontario, putting some 20,000 long-term beds into the system, providing jobs for some 7,900 nurses and 19,000 other health care workers in the province.

I quite agree, we might be in a different position if either one of the other two parties opposite would have done a single thing with respect to long-term care and seniors' care in the 10 years they were in government.

1430

Mr Hampton: We need to be absolutely clear: What the government did was, it took eight years of funding for long-term care, $150 million a year, wrapped it into one bundle and said, "Here's $1.2 billion." The announcement covers eight years, $150 million a year. You're putting back in $150 million a year on an annual basis. You took out $1 billion a year on an annual basis. My question was, how is that going to get us more beds? Putting $150 million a year back in when you're already on course to take $1 billion a year out does not get us more beds, unless the other $850 million is going to come from user fees, copayment fees, and otherwise the privatization of the long-term-care system. Is that what this is all about, really, Minister? You put $150 million a year in and the senior citizens and the elderly of this province pay for the rest out of their pockets? American-style privatized health care, isn't that what this is all about?

Hon Mr Eves: The simple answer to his question is no, that's not what it's all about. What it's all about is providing Ontarians with a restructured health care system that will be in place for many decades to come. Somebody made the comment over there, "You set aside $2.5 billion in the budget last year for health care restructuring but you haven't done anything." What you did and what you did in the 10 years that you were in power, you eliminated between 10,000 and 11,000 beds in the system, but did nothing about restructuring the system for the future. You didn't care about the care of seniors and long-term care in the province of Ontario.

To date we have made reinvestments of $1,893,352,000, ranging from $7.5 million at Barrie Royal Victoria Hospital, $3.35 million for the Markdale nursing home, $750,000 for the Stratford nursing home. I can go on and on. I can read off the whole list if you want, but the list totals - except the Speaker wouldn't let me. Sorry, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I'm not letting you actually total it, either. New question.

HOME CARE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I would like to go back to the minister responsible for senior citizens about the question of privatization of home nursing visits in Ontario. What the minister neglected to tell the House in his first answers is that investigations of this company started in 1995, are being conducted in four American jurisdictions, deal with very serious charges around improper billing, improper care and ought to be responded to. Will the minister give this House his assurance today that no further contracts with Olsten Corp will be let by a CCAC in Ontario, or will he abdicate the government's responsibility in this province to protect our parents and grandparents until these serious issues are resolved in the United States? Will the minister stand up and protect seniors in this province?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): The member opposite is calling into question the citizens of Windsor who serve on the Windsor Community Care Access Centre board. That is what he is calling into question. The fact is that community care is not spent directly by the province of Ontario, it is handed to the community board in Windsor, those good citizens, many of them themselves seniors, handicapped members of the Windsor community, persons who have used community support services. That board is the one that lets the contracts out and examines the quality of care, ensures that those nurses, your neighbours in your own community, your constituents, who are working for these companies all across Ontario, are providing the highest quality of care.

We're very proud of the fact that these companies in this province and all service providers are providing the highest levels of care and the highest levels of access for any Canadians at all. We're proud of that record and we'll continue to support our community care access centres in the work they do for the seniors of this province.

Mr Duncan: The minister obviously is not even aware of his own ability to influence these decisions. Check your own statutes, review the decisions and don't allow them to sign a contract until such time as these serious allegations are looked after. In fact, you are hurting nurses. We have the support of the nursing community in our city.

Minister, if this is such an open process, why won't your government allow the CCACs to release the contracts? Will you allow them? Will you stand today in the House and say that you're interested in protecting that organization in Windsor? Will you allow them to release the contract they're about to sign or will you continue to keep that in private? We have attempted to get those contracts from seven different communities in this province and have been told repeatedly that your government won't allow them to release the information. What are you hiding? Why won't you stand up and protect the seniors in my community, in your community, right across this province? Do what's right: Exert your authority and exert it properly.

Hon Mr Jackson: The members opposite have a pretty selective memory. I recall in the last election that not only did they support expanding community-based care, they supported the use of community care access centres and they agreed to support the RFP, request for proposal, process. The RFP proposal guidelines established by this government clearly state that there is a debriefing process and that information is to be shared.

I want to remind the member opposite that it was his leader, Lyn McLeod, leader of the Liberal Party, whom he was campaigning for in the last election, who said on June 28, 1993, "Everything I hear from seniors, from their families, is that the private sector is providing quality services and people are satisfied with the kinds of services they're getting." That's from your own leader and your own party in the last election.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also for the Deputy Premier, in view of the fact that the Minister of Health is not here.

Yesterday I met with a very sick young boy and his mother in London, Ontario, and also the physician who has treated him. This young boy went to the children's hospital in London in very ill condition. He was told there was no bed, so they put him in the emergency ward. Then he was sent home and he got sicker and he got an infection, which created an even worse situation. The long and the short of this is that as a result of the fact that there was no bed for him and they could not treat him, he has had to spend close to 55 days in hospital. He's been very ill; he's been near death.

Can you tell me what your announcement yesterday will do for this young boy and the many other young children across this province who can't get a bed at a hospital like this?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm not going to respond in a political way at all because I think it's a very serious situation he's talking about. I'd be more than happy to take the question under advisement, to receive the particulars that the member may have and make sure the Ministry of Health has those particulars so the matter can be followed up on.

1440

Mr Hampton: I thank you for your offer on that. This particular mother actually asked the Premier to come down to London and spend just a little bit of time to see what's happening to her son and the other children who are in that ward in that particular hospital. The point the mother makes and the point the physician makes is that many times at the sick children's hospital in London, children have had to sit in the emergency ward because there are no beds and other patients have had to sit in the emergency ward because there are no beds. In other situations, when there has been a bed they haven't had sufficient funding to staff the bed with a qualified nurse, which means that the bed sits empty in that case.

This is about the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars have been removed from hospitals across this province, and this is one of the hospitals. The nurses who used to be there aren't there any more. She wants to know, and people all across Ontario want to know, what does the announcement that you made yesterday mean for this child and hundreds of others like him across the province?

Hon Mr Eves: Any announcement with respect to long-term-care beds or seniors' beds obviously is going to free up more acute care beds in the hospital system.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): In eight years' time.

Hon Mr Eves: The member for Beaches-Woodbine says, "In eight years' time." I quite agree; it's too bad that the province of Ontario didn't embark upon this 10 years ago, nine years ago, eight years ago etc. We have put $1.2 billion, a significant investment, into long-term care. Sure, it is spent over a number of years. Physically, you couldn't spend the $1.2 billion in one year if you had every construction company available in the world. I agree, that's why the planning for this should have started 10 years ago, but it didn't, so we have assumed the responsibility and we are dealing with the problem.

With respect to the very specific issue the leader of the third party is raising, with respect to this individual, I believe it is a very serious situation he raises. As I said to him quite sincerely, I'm prepared to take the facts back to the Ministry of Health and try to get him an appropriate response. But I do want to make clear that we are making significant reinvestments in the health care system. In responding to the health restructuring commission's recommendations alone -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

WILD TURKEY HUNT

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. On Friday evening in Midland, the Georgian Bay Hunters and Anglers club celebrated its 75th anniversary. I was present at the dinner. There was a lot of discussion at that dinner about the wild turkey hunt which is currently under way in Ontario. It's my understanding that the wild turkey hunt this year has been extended to further areas and that there's a higher limit per hunter. Could you provide the House with a report on that, please?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to congratulate the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for attending that 75th anniversary last weekend. I'm sure his constituents were pleased by his presence. I'm happy to report to him that he's quite right; there have been some very big changes to the turkey hunt this year, some very significant changes in the hunt. In fact, beginning this year there will be a two-bird bag limit for bearded wild turkey for all wildlife management units that have a wild turkey hunt.

I notice that the members opposite, including the member for Scarborough North, are worried about a turkey hunt that doesn't cover the Legislature. Alvin, it's fine.

Another change that's significant is that the hunting season will be extended until May 31, and the hunt has been expanded as well. We've added two new seasons this year, for Leeds-Grenville and Huron. Those are added to the 22 wildlife units that had a hunt last year.

I believe the turkey hunt is on again this year; it has been expanded. We have an increased bird limit this year - a lot more hunting opportunities for people in Ontario.

Mr Grimmett: My supplementary also relates to the wild turkey hunt. It's my understanding that there are a lot more wild turkeys evident not only in the wild turkey hunt area but also in other parts of the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member has the right to place the question and be -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, please come to order. It's a question about wild turkeys. Please come to order.

Mr Grimmett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The other day I was driving just west of Bracebridge on a country road and I saw five wild turkeys. This is evidence that the population is much higher than it was in 1984. Are the new hunting opportunities the result of a larger population of wild turkeys in Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You know what, government members? I'm going to stop the clock next time. I can't hear, and I think it's from this side. Minister?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sure the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, as do I, appreciates all the help from the members of the House in addressing this question. I particularly want to thank the turkeys in the press gallery for sending down a little note that might help me in addressing this, a comment I may pay for at some point in the future.

But I do want to address the question, because I think it's important. The increase in the hunt this year for wild turkeys is a result of some conservation efforts on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources and some of our partners many years ago. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, together with the Ministry of Natural Resources, years ago began to reintroduce these birds that were hunted to extinction at the turn of the century. As a matter of fact, by the mid-1980s a total of 274 birds had been reintroduced into Ontario, and effective this year I'm pleased to say that the population has grown to some 17,000, which has allowed us to expand this hunt.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Today your government is closing down another hospital emergency department. Today you're shutting down the emergency department of Toronto's Doctors Hospital. You're ordering this unique neighbourhood hospital to shut its doors to emergency medical needs after 109 years of serving the emergency needs of patients. This community hospital has served some of the poorest people in the city and people of very diverse cultural backgrounds; in fact, 58% of the people who have relied on this good hospital were born outside of Canada.

Given the ongoing emergency crisis, with patients lined up on stretchers in hospital corridors and ambulances carrying patients being redirected from hospital to hospital, why would you close down another emergency department? Where will these 12,000 patients who relied on Doctors Hospital now go?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm not aware of the exact particulars of the event he's talking about today, but I am aware of course, and so is he, I hope, that the Minister of Health recently announced a $255-million initiative, of which a considerable amount of that money was specifically directed towards alleviating the problems in emergency rooms all over Ontario. If the emergency ward at Doctors Hospital is closing, it's my understanding that those patients who used to go there will now be going to Western.

1450

Mr Colle: When the issue of a crisis in emergency closures in Toronto and the lineups in emergency departments was brought up last January, your government said that the cause of this was probably the January flu. Now you are repeating the same mistake. Not only have you closed the emergency at Northwestern, not only have you closed the emergency at Branson at 10 o'clock and also the emergency at Wellesley Hospital, now you're going to close another one, and your announcement earlier this week won't really take effect for another eight years perhaps.

The question I'm asking today is, how does this make any sense to the patients who are now waiting in these hallways in our hospitals here in Metro? Where are they going to go? Are they still going to be redirected en route from hospital to hospital, just bounced around in the ambulances? Where will they go?

Hon Mr Eves: At the end of the day, as a result of the restructuring commission's suggestions, the city of Toronto will actually receive an updated or an increased annual emergency room capacity of some 600,000 cases a year. That is where the government is going in terms of restructuring the health care system in Ontario and with respect to emergency rooms in the city of Toronto specifically.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Attorney General. On Monday your colleague Bob Runciman, who was Solicitor General, stood in the Legislature and announced his resignation from cabinet in view of the impending RCMP investigation. In fact, I can quote him. He said:

"That being said, I understand that the leader of the third party has asked for an investigation by the RCMP into this matter. I remain willing to offer whatever assistance I can to that process. In the meantime, given my respect for the office I've held for the past two and a half years and my high regard for the laws of our country, I believe I should step aside during this process."

A criminal investigation is now under way. We understand that investigation includes looking into the conduct of the Premier's staff, so can you tell me why Bob Runciman is taking the fall? Why is he the only person stepping aside? Why is no one in the Premier's office taking an unpaid leave of absence during this criminal investigation?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The honourable member asks me questions that lead obviously into discussions about details of a particular situation over which allegations have been made. The police are investigating the allegations, and it would be inappropriate to make any comments.

Mr Hampton: This has got nothing to do with what the RCMP may be doing; this has got to do with the fact that a cabinet minister has been lined up to take the fall for the whole government. We know that that cabinet minister, Bob Runciman, did not write the throne speech. We know that Deb Hutton in the Premier's office helped to write the throne speech; she has given that comment to the media. We know that Guy Giorno in the Premier's office wrote the throne speech; he has given that comment to the media.

Bob Runciman did the right thing. He said: "I may be implicated in this. I will stand aside." Why is he the fall guy? Why haven't the whiz kids in the Premier's office, Guy Giorno, Deb Hutton, done the proper thing? Why aren't they taking an unpaid leave of absence while this investigation looks at their conduct as well? Can you tell us that?

Hon Mr Harnick: Again, these are questions that would, I would think, be part of an investigation that the police are doing, and it would be inappropriate to comment.

WORKFARE

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have been hearing a lot in the news recently about your Ontario Works program. In fact, in the speech from the throne, there were a number of highlights of some of the numerous success stories of the program. I want to congratulate you on the success you are having in reforming the welfare system in this province, but there's a question I want to ask.

There has been an item in the paper recently that has prompted a number of questions to my constituency office. The story indicates that you have recently travelled to the States, specifically Wisconsin, on the subject of welfare reform, so I wanted to pass along to you the question that has come to me from my constituents. Why have you been travelling outside the province on this matter and why, in particular, Wisconsin?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): One of the things that has been very encouraging as I have travelled around the province and listened and met with municipalities and people who are on welfare to ask them about the program is to listen to the success stories from those individuals who are indeed getting themselves off welfare and into paid jobs.

Before we began the program we'd consulted with Canadian and American jurisdictions that have workfare programs in place. Now that the municipal infrastructure is in place for delivering Ontario Works, our mandatory work-for-welfare program, now that the legislation is in place, we are saying, "Where should we go from here?" and we are talking to jurisdictions that can provide us with that advice.

Wisconsin has just unveiled a fairly significant new version of their workfare plan. As you may know, they have been in the business of providing work-for-welfare programs since the late 1980s, so I thought it was appropriate to go down and see what we could learn from that jurisdiction about what works for them.

Mr Parker: Thank you, Minister, and I appreciate the research you've put into this subject. I wonder if you can tell us just what are some of the important differences between the program in place in Wisconsin and the program that you're introducing here in Ontario.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I think it's important to note that it is a different jurisdiction with different laws and a different sort of legal culture, if you will. We do have here and we'll continue to have a made-in-Ontario work-for-welfare program, but a couple of things they are doing are quite interesting.

First of all, their partnership with community agencies and private sector employers is working really well. They actually have non-profit community agencies, even church groups, that help them deliver their welfare. They have a really good partnership with potential private sector employers, and it seems to be working extremely well. We're interested in seeing if that would work here in Ontario.

The second important focus is their focus on families on welfare and as a matter of fact in Wisconsin their work-for-welfare plans are just for families, not for what we would call single employables. Some of the things they are doing to support families to get into the workplace faster I think are child care supports, for example, tax policies -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the same minister, the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you and your Tory cuts have created one of the worst social housing crises this province has ever seen. More and more people are living on the streets. You see it in every city in the province and the numbers are growing.

According to the United Way, the number of homeless increased by 67% in the last year alone. The results of your insensitive management are in the face of each homeless person. Your government is trying to spin good news now with what you are calling a major reinvestment in health care. Will you help those today that you have made homeless? People are being forced out of the psychiatric hospitals with nowhere to go. You've wiped out social housing. Your government has not responded to the demand for affordable housing. In addition, you've also cut social welfare by 22%. What action, Minister, are you willing to take now today to respond to the homeless tragedy that you have caused?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As you know, meeting the needs of individuals who are homeless is a shared responsibility between the province and the municipalities. We have had a province-wide task force led by my parliamentary assistant, Jack Carroll, who has been meeting with the municipalities to see how we can do more to help support what in many cases are very, very complex needs that those individuals who may find themselves homeless can have. It may range through everything from mental health issues to substance abuse issues and we have heard that message very strongly from those agencies that deal with people who are homeless, that we need a lot of different support mechanisms to make sure we can better serve those people who have that particular challenge.

Mr Curling: It is your government that has caused this crisis. My colleague Sandra Pupatello from Windsor-Sandwich passed on a report from Windsor city council to me that outlines all the costs of emergency hostels are now being downloaded from the province to the municipality. Your government is passing the buck to cities to care for those needing emergency shelters, the poor, the elderly, the physically and developmentally challenged without financial support. This is another blow for those seeking basic shelter. The moral responsibility lies with this government, with you, Minister, to look after those in our society who need help.

Now you're telling me it's rather complex. You have made it complex. It's a basic need that these people have and you're telling me too that the Jack Carroll rodeo show that goes around to hear people, to have more task forces, will resolve this matter. A task force will not resolve this matter. We all know what the problem is. It is your responsibility. The financial support is needed by you, the provincial government, not passing the buck to the city

Tell me, Minister, what are you going to do today about the homeless and the crisis you have created in this province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to my honourable colleague, I would caution him about relying on the research of his colleague from Windsor if this is evidence of what she has given him.

We do cost-share emergency hostels in this province. That has not changed. That is not changing. There has not been a reduction in that budget. There is no cap on that budget. We continue to pay that as the need dictates. So I would really caution him to get his facts straight about that.

Secondly, the response Mr Carroll has been getting back from many community agencies, from the municipalities, as he's been consulting is that it's not a question of needing more money. We have put more and we're prepared to put more money into some of those supports. They are saying the problem is that so much of that money is getting wasted in the needless duplication between different ministry departments, between the provincial and municipal governments. So they're recommending to us that we need to get rid of some of those barriers so that money can do a better job. I look forward to those recommendations from the task force so that our government can act on them.

1500

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources regarding your Lands for Life process. Since the inception of this particular land use planning process, the concern by members of the public about it has been growing. We have a number of concerns from a number of aboriginal communities that feel they've been completely left out of important decisions to be made on land use planning, particularly on traditional lands; many members of the public, particularly in southern Ontario, who are concerned that they don't have adequate input and opportunities for participation; and thirdly, a very serious concern, which is growing, that there is not enough time for people to adequately have their say with respect to the various options that are coming forward from the round table.

Will you commit today in this House that the time line for recommendations to you on land use options will be extended? There have been rumours that you are thinking about extending this until October. Will you commit today to extend this process to the members of the round table?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member opposite for the question. There is a lot of public interest in Lands for Life, as there should be. People across the province are very interested in the land use policy for this province on into the future and obviously many people are enjoying the opportunity, in a very public process, of deciding on that policy. The volunteers who are the round tables, the people from mostly northern communities who have got together, who have direct daily stewardship over these lands, have been engaged in the public over the course of the last few months on a variety of options for Ontario.

I'm proud to say to the member opposite today that we have extended the deadline for the Lands for Life process once already. I have recently met with the chairs of the round tables to talk to them about their proposals for extending it again. I was able to tell them that we will in fact honour their request, which is that their submission at the end of June will come in draft form to the minister. We will also work with them over the course of the next month on a further public consultation process, post the bringing in of that draft. So that's under way right now.

Ms Martel: I don't think having the draft in in the short time that you've requested is going to do it. You know that across northern Ontario record numbers of people from communities have been coming out to these public meetings because they are very concerned about the various options that have been put forward. They are particularly concerned because there has been no economic analysis done of any of the various options which the round tables are putting towards the public. So people in the mining industry, people in the forestry industry, environmentalists, OFAH, people who are involved in remote tourism are all concerned about what the economic impact will be, and your ministry and the round tables have not done that work.

I ask you again, will you commit today to extend the public part of this process until October so that the public can have a look at the options that are put forward, and will you also commit that all of the options will have economic analyses attached to them so all of the stakeholders can understand what's at stake here?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I want to thank the member for the opportunity to bring this forward to the House today because I think it is important. I think this is a very important public policy for Ontario and for future generations.

As I said a moment ago, I have been working in cooperation with the chairs of our round tables and I have agreed that instead of submitting a final report, they will submit a draft in June to us and we'll work with them between now and that time on a further public consultation process, some of which will involve the economic impacts and obviously the ecological impacts of good land use planning in Ontario.

There has been a lot of interest, particularly in northern Ontario but also in southern Ontario, in this public land process. Many of the people I've talked to in northern parts of Ontario have expressed to me thanks for our government taking this position of having a public process, of not doing what your government did in the past, just decreeing public land use process, but actually inviting the public in, actually listening to their opinions and actually listening to what's important to them. I'm glad we're doing that.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Over the last few years we've all heard the media reports about unsafe trucks on our roads. I've had many constituents in my riding high atop panoramic Hamilton Mountain call my office expressing their concern over the safety of big trucks on the road. They too, through the media, have heard the news reports about truck blitzes, as you well know.

I'd like to be able to update my constituents about what is happening with truck safety, so could you please tell me what your ministry has done to combat unsafe trucks and tell us about some of the initiatives you've taken, in particular some of the things such as the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week truck inspection stations and also truck impoundment.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): Indeed safe roadways are important, for a number of reasons. Of course it means safety for individuals, it enhances our quality of life and it also increases our economic trade.

Our government has introduced a number of truck safety initiatives. First, with respect to truck impoundment, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in North America, on February 2 of this year, to have truck impoundments for critically defective commercial vehicles. Trucks will be impounded for 15 days for a first offence, 30 days for a second and 60 days for a third. There are in fact 10 truck impoundment facilities across the province open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and we have hired 80 additional truck inspection officers to work on these stations.

The record since February 2 has been that MTO officers have impounded 42 commercial vehicles. This number is lower than we had originally expected, but I believe it shows that the bad operators are getting the message that it does not pay to have unsafe trucks on the road in Ontario.

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

Hon Mr Clement: Indeed, we have done a number of other things such as increasing fines for commercial safety offenders, the absolute liability offence for truck wheel separations, all of which is improving -

The Speaker: Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VETERANS' MEMORIAL PARKWAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROMENADE COMMÉMORATIVE DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 10, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to name Highway 416 Veterans' Memorial Parkway / Projet de loi 10, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun pour nommer la voie publique 416 Promenade commémorative des anciens combattants.

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

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 11, An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species / Projet de loi 11, Loi révisant la Loi sur les espèces en voie de disparition et visant à protéger les espèces vulnérables et les espèces menacées.

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

A short comment?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The purpose of the bill is to replace the Endangered Species Act. The act currently provides protection to endangered species of animals and plants. The bill extends this protection to threatened and vulnerable species. A committee may be established to advise the Minister of Natural Resources as to which species should be declared endangered, threatened or vulnerable and as to possible recovery plans to ensure survival of these species.

The minister may acquire land or enter into land management agreements with a view to protecting such designated species and their habitats.

1510

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

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

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

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I am standing here today to speak in support of charitable organizations all across the province, including those in my home town of Thunder Bay, and against this government's repeated and cruel attacks on these hardworking organizations.

Last year the government quietly increased their take of proceeds from charitable bingos. Then in January by regulation they started grabbing millions of dollars through a 5% tax on each box of break-open tickets sold by our Ontario charities. Finally, on April 1 the government callously halted the operation of roving casinos, depriving charities of millions of dollars in much-needed revenue.

This government's sneaky moves to line their own pockets at the expense of charitable organizations must stop. Now we have learned that the government has stopped providing any funds to the Ontario Trillium Foundation, which provides crucial support to social service groups in my community and across the province, until the casino money starts rolling in.

As a result, members of our caucus are alarmed at the recent appointment of highly political friends of Mike Harris to the Trillium Foundation, to this arm's-length government agency. These friends include the mother of a former staffer in the Premier's office and a golfing buddy of the Premier. It is vitally important that all future funding by the Trillium Foundation remains above reproach. That is why it is crucial that it remains a truly arm's-length organization.

Premier, for the sake of the credibility of this important organization, cancel your political appointments and return the foundation to its rightful place as a non-political entity with board members from all across the province, including northwestern Ontario. Our charities truly deserve better from this government.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The property tax assessment and the elimination of the business occupancy tax caused consternation in our community when retailers and small businesses discovered that their taxes were going to increase by as much as 700%, well beyond their ability to pay.

When the government was faced with an open revolt by small businesses, they scrambled for a solution. What they came up with, capping the increase at 2.5% per year for the next three years, is a Band-Aid. It only postpones the problem. The business property tax remains, a time bomb set to explode three years from now when the next provincial assessment takes place.

Let me show you the level of concern in our community. Here we have these letters, 300 or so coming from the Toronto Eaton Centre alone. Most of the businesses in the Eaton Centre are small franchise operations that have to compete with other small businesses on main streets. The Harris government's suggestions that municipalities adopt graduated rates for different classes of buildings would result in these businesses being taxed at the highest rate just because they are in a shopping mall. The retailers in the Eaton Centre are right when they say that this is not fair and that it will destroy their ability to compete.

We need a real solution. Toronto businesses should not have to pay twice as much for education as their neighbours elsewhere in the GTA. Services like welfare and social housing should be paid for out of income taxes, not property taxes. Reassessment implementation should be suspended for one year so that we can get it right.

ICE STORM

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise in the House today to recognize the courage and heroism of those who kept people and communities alive through the disastrous impacts of the January ice storm in eastern Ontario.

We are all aware of the devastation suffered by households, farmers and businesses which went without power for as long as 16 days and fought severe temperatures and heartbreaking property damage as the lifestyle we take for granted became a matter of survival.

Our survival was made possible by volunteers and community leaders who gave of their time, talents and resources 24 hours a day. I must note the exceptional concerted efforts of the Canadian Armed Forces, Ontario Hydro, municipalities, fire departments, legions and countless members of Ontario's corporate community.

I also want to thank the Premier, the cabinet and all members for the unreserved commitment of financial resources, moral support and recognition of volunteers.

Without even factoring in the recent floods, we are still far from recovery, but having witnessed the tremendous amount of cooperation and community building, I know the task will be done.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): We've already begun to see the impact of this government's funding formula with the layoff of hundreds of educational assistants across the province. We're now starting to see the effect of Mike Harris's control of education in the proposed closure of schools in every community.

Just in case anyone wants to argue that this is a decision the school boards are making, let me make it clear. School closings are being forced by the government's cuts in funding. This government decided in its wisdom that it could save money by limiting the number of square feet per student that boards would be allowed to maintain. This has the effect of instantly creating hundreds of thousands of apparently excess unneeded spaces in our schools.

It's not that there aren't students in those spaces; there are. These are not empty classrooms. But the government won't pay to heat or light or clean them any more, so the board will have to move the students out to somewhere else.

The Halton Board of Education now finds it has 600,000 square feet of this newly defined extra space, so it has to figure out how to close about 10 schools, supposedly by September when the funding cut hits. But the added problem for Halton is that they have 186 portable classrooms and these have an apparently growing problem with mould. Half of these may have to close too. So what does Halton do with all the students? Can they keep the 10 schools open and bus the children in the mouldy portables into these schools, wherever they may be, or will they be forced to close 10 schools and fit the children in the mouldy portables into whatever space is left?

Unanswered questions, equally intolerable choices and a whole lot of kids and families about to face a move that they don't -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements?

DENTAL CARE

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today Dr Michael Sigal, president of the Ontario Society of Pediatric Dentists, and a number of other organizations pointed out that when tomorrow the government proclaims its new Ontario Works Act, one of the changes that will take place is that 600,000 children and people with disabilities will lose important dental coverage.

As Dr Sigal pointed out, the current program permits patients to choose their treating dentists. The new dental plan eliminates and reduces access to many of the treatments that are necessary to meet the oral health care needs of these vulnerable people.

He also pointed out that the plan will download responsibility and costs of many services to municipal health units, which are quite frankly not equipped to meet the special treatment needs of people with disabilities, and that travelling to clinics will be a problem for many patients.

He went on to also point out that the government's new plan fails to cover some important procedures. For example, children suffering from trauma to the front teeth are not covered and dentists would have to receive preauthorization before performing emergency procedures.

As if that wasn't enough, they also point out that the new plan moves away from the current focus on prevention and also the new plan, as a result of the changes, is going to be more expensive because right now people can go to a dentist of their choosing. Under the new plan they will have to go to clinics which in many places don't exist, will have to be set up, and therefore will end up costing the taxpayers more.

I join this group as they ask the minister to pause on this and change the course of action before it's too late.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Yesterday I had the pleasure of welcoming to my riding of Etobicoke-Humber Premier Mike Harris, the health minister, Elizabeth Witmer, and the minister responsible for seniors, Cam Jackson, who together announced an expansion of $1.2 billion in funding to long-term care.

Not only does this announcement increase health care funding; it lets people in Ontario know that our government is responding to the calls for assistance from health care professionals which the previous two governments had failed to answer.

With the average age of the population increasing rapidly, our government recognizes the need for additional long-term-care funding and has responded accordingly. Perhaps my friends across the floor who failed to listen to the health care community when their party was in government should open their ears and listen to what health care professionals are saying now.

Carol Jarman, executive director of the Ukrainian Care Centre, where the announcement was made, had this observation:

"This announcement is a tremendous step forward in the restructuring of the provincial health care system. The Ontario government clearly understands that the vision for an effective health care system includes long-term care as a crucial piece of the restructuring puzzle."

I want to thank Carol and the other caregivers in Etobicoke for their valuable input that led to this decision. Together, our plan to return prosperity to Ontario is working.

1520

NATURAL GAS SUPPLIERS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My remarks are addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This is the second time I am bringing to his attention the deplorable actions of some natural gas brokers. This is the second time I have brought to his attention many complaints I have received.

As a matter of fact, today I was very pleased that the minister brought to my attention a letter he received on one of the complaints I had brought to his office. The case involved a number of natural gas brokers and the attitude they use towards many thousands of Ontario consumers, and it comes in many aspects. One of those is forwarding a cheque, usually in a very low amount, some $10 or $12, representing a refund or a bonus, which is nothing more than an enticement to join the particular company, unaware that once the cheque is cashed the contract is assigned to the new company and usually goes for a period of five years. What happens is that the gas they receive is usually at a much more expensive rate per cubic metre than that of the previous supplier.

Due to the absence of any protection in the legislation, I am calling on the minister to introduce legislation which would bring relief and protection for thousands of consumers in Ontario.

HAMILTON POLICE CHIEF

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm very proud and pleased to stand in my place today and report on an important matter that has taken place in my home town of Hamilton-Wentworth this morning. We held ceremonies for the change of command from our outgoing police chief, Bob Middaugh, to our incoming police chief, Ken Robertson.

I want to first comment on Bob Middaugh. Of course, I worked with Chief Middaugh, both as a local member in Hamilton but also during my time as Solicitor General, when Bob was not only our local chief but was also president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. I can say to this House, and would say so anywhere at any time, that I think Bob Middaugh is one of the most decent, honest, committed individuals in policing or any other walk of public life that I've ever had the pleasure to work with, and he leaves a tremendous vacuum for incoming Chief Robertson to fill.

Ken Robertson, on his part, has played a leadership role as a deputy chief, certainly very much committed to community policing, where I believe our police service has played a leading role, and I think that he, among a very few in this entire province, is someone of such of a calibre that he can fill those shoes left by Bob Middaugh. I would ask members of this House, in a non-partisan way, to join me in wishing incoming Police Chief Ken Robertson good luck.

WAYNE MIDDAUGH

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Wayne Middaugh, for skipping the Canadian team to victory in the World Curling Championships recently held in Kamloops, British Columbia.

Wayne and his rink defeated the defending champion, Peter Lindholm of Sweden, 7-4 to win the title. This is the second world championship for Middaugh, who curled second on the 1993 world championship rink, skipped by another constituent of mine, Russ Howard of Midland.

Wayne is a resident of the village of Victoria Harbour on Georgian Bay and is the golf professional at Midland Golf and Country Club. He takes a great interest in youth curling, and between his victory in the Canadian Brier and the world championships I had the pleasure to attend a banquet at the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations' high school curling championship in Midland, where Wayne was the guest speaker. He's clearly a great role model and an inspiration for young curlers.

Wayne is a year-round resident in Muskoka-Georgian Bay, where curling is an integral part of winter life. Nearly every village and town in my riding is equipped with a curling facility enjoyed by people of all ages.

My constituents and I are proud of Wayne Middaugh, and tonight his community will pay tribute to him. He's an outstanding ambassador for curling in Muskoka-Georgian Bay, for the province of Ontario and throughout the world, and he's now the reigning world curling champion.

PETITIONS

DISPONIBILITÉ D'UNE ÉCOLE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition signed by 569 of my constituents. It reads as follows:

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu qu'il n'existe aucune école française dans le quartier de Chapel Hill à Gloucester ;

«Attendu que la demande pour une école francophone et catholique au sein de Chapel Hill est évidente et pressante ;

«Nous, les soussignés, pétitionnons l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario comme suit :

«De libérer des fonds pour permettre la construction d'une nouvelle école catholique française à Gloucester dans le secteur de Chapel Hill.»

J'y ai affixé ma signature.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by approximately 100 residents of various parts of the province. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public on Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in the government;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I have a petition signed by a number of students in Niagara-on-the-Lake, St Catharines and the Niagara region which reads:

"We, the undersigned students of the province of Ontario and their parents, respectfully request that the philosophy of neighbourhood schools be maintained, and that should it be necessary to close schools, the consultation process be recognized and enforced, allowing time for debate and discussion."

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which I'd like to read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1530

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Ted Mansell, who is the occupational health and safety coordinator for the Service Employees International Union. It's signed by members of theirs from across the province. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenue due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and service sectors; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners.

CURRICULUM

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 5,692 people. I believe it's the largest petition presented to date in this session. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Education is initiating secondary school curriculum reform in light of the compression of five years into four, we would recommend that the following be enacted into provincial legislation:

"(1) The ministry recognize that the topic of origins is faith-based. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. Consequently both are religious by nature. In fairness to the parents and students of Ontario, equal instruction time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking, such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief systems and better appreciate an opposing view.

"(2) The ministry, through in-service training, should encourage senior administrators, principals and teachers to familiarize themselves with this two-model assumptional approach and the accompanying skills of critical thinking.

"(3) The ministry begin the process of mandating that all textbooks dealing with the topic of origins in both the social and pure sciences (ie history, geography, biology and geology) should reflect the two-model assumptional approach before being included in circular 14."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a similar petition to the one I introduced before, but slightly different. This one might be in order.

"Whereas the government of Ontario is determined to pass Bill 160 without meaningful consultation with parents, teachers and other stakeholders; and

"Whereas a properly funded quality education system is critical to the wellbeing of the children of this province and to the future of the province itself;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly hold a province-wide referendum on the question of whether Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, should be withdrawn or, if enacted, whether Bill 160 should be repealed."

I've signed my name to the petition.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege to present a petition on behalf of the member for Durham Centre, my colleague the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Jim Flaherty. The petition is to Premier Mike Harris, Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer and members of the Ontario Legislature, and it's by the chiropractic patients of Ontario who are urging the government to extend the service and funding of chiropractic services. I am pleased to sign my name to the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses;

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

It's signed by a large number of people from right across Ontario.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition that is signed by a number of constituents from Aurora, Newmarket, Holland Landing and Bradford. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition here signed by people all the way from Scarborough to Kenora, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas all schools in Ontario should be safe learning and working environments; and

"Whereas all Ontarians should be assured that safe school programs are in place in all Ontario schools; and

"Whereas a private member's bill has been drafted entitled An Act to Promote Safety in Ontario Schools and Create Positive Learning Environments for Ontario Students, 1998; and

"Whereas this bill will:

"Require all boards in Ontario to design and implement school safety programs, school codes of conduct and anti-vandalism policies;

"Provide for effective early intervention strategies by requiring boards to design and implement anti-bullying policies and by providing boards with the ability to direct psychological assessments of students that they believe are at risk;

"Provide a provincial violence and weapons-free schools policy and allow boards the ability to exclude violent students from regular classroom settings;

"Give police the tools they need by creating a new provincial offence for trespassing on school property and backing it up with real consequences;

"Direct all boards in Ontario to design and implement alternative education programs for suspended and excluded students;

"Require parents to be liable for any damage done to school property by their children; and

"Protect teachers and staff from civil liability;

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

"To pass into law the Safe Schools Act as quickly as possible."

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I know when I finished off the time that was on the clock last night there were still a few minutes left and I'm glad to have the chance to complete my remarks this afternoon.

I talked a little bit last night about the contradictory approach, the two-pronged approach that I saw Mike Harris and company take in the speech from the throne. On the one hand, they were trying very hard to project a softer, gentler, "we're listening" type of attitude and approach, and of course we saw many, many examples of that in the speech where they tried to say, "Well, here's this individual who supports what we're doing here and there." Certainly those of us listening here and people listening across the province would have had to wonder how that meshes against the reality of what is going on out there.

We've seen many examples in terms of the cuts to our health care system, to our education system that quite frankly, in that area, we will continue to see more and more of in the coming months as school boards deal with the impact of the new funding formula. We have begun to see indications of classroom after classroom, school after school being closed down; entire programs such as adult programs being either shut down or completely restructured to the point where the supports that were there are no longer going to be there. That is certainly going to be the case here in Toronto. We will see over the next number of months many more indicators like that, many more decisions that school boards will have to take as a result of the new funding formula that will result in worse programs than we have today.

I can tell you, certainly from the perspective here in Toronto, that there were many in the Catholic school community who expected that as a result of the new funding formula they would get more money in the system. What we will see at the end of the three-year implementation of the new funding formula is a net gain, according to the ministry's own figures, of some $3 million for the Catholic system here in Metropolitan Toronto, while on the other hand there is a loss of about $125 million to the public system. That's just by looking at the government figures. The school boards themselves are still trying to crunch the numbers and get a better sense. I think by the end of the day we will see both systems, certainly here in the Toronto community, be the worse off rather than better off as a result of the new funding system.

I could go on if time allowed, area by area, and talk about the complete contradiction with the soft image the Tories tried to project in the speech from the throne and the harsh reality that's out there. The other part I mentioned last night was that at the same time as Mike Harris is trying to project a softer image, in the throne speech itself we also see his reminder to people out there that he hasn't really lost that tough guy image. Hence the comments that are in the speech about ensuring that they're going to continue to be tough on welfare recipients, that they're going to continue to make incredible demands on people who are the most vulnerable.

Today we saw the latest in what I know will continue to be a long series of changes. We had from the Ontario Dental Association a really detailed and very useful explanation of what the new welfare legislation will mean for people with disabilities and for children who are now covered under the Family Benefits Act. Now they are able to receive coverage for a number of dental services that they need. They will lose much of this coverage, coverage they are now able to get by going to a dentist of their choosing. They will no longer be able to do that under the new system; they will have to go to a clinic set up by the local municipality, which will be responsible for running the new welfare system. In many cases, those clinics don't exist or aren't equipped to deal with these things. The net result - get this - coming from a government that prides itself on being able to manage things, according to Dr Sigal of the Ontario Dental Association, is that extraction services which now cost $339 will under the new plan cost taxpayers $855. It's going to cost taxpayers more to get less. That doesn't sound to me like good government, good services. It doesn't sound to me like good management.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd be quite prepared to give the honourable member across the way the correct information.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Silipo: I only have a couple of minutes. I look forward to hearing the minister's statement in the rebuttal.

In the last couple of minutes, I just want to say that one of the points I have also been very interested in, in this whole discussion, is that as a member of the opposition I've continued to make the point that it's now more than ever important for us to put forward some alternatives. When our leader, Howard Hampton, spoke yesterday here on the throne speech debate, he set out very clearly the alternative view of the world that we have but also set out very realistically the way in which we would propose to pay for some of the reinvestment in education, in our health care system, in our social services.

Unlike our colleagues in the Liberal Party, who want to pretend that you can reinvest in education without affecting the tax system, that somehow you're going to find this money magically from God knows where - and I continued to ask my Liberal colleagues last night, and I want to tell them I'm going to ask them this question: How do they propose to pay for these new things? We have said very clearly we would take a look at the 30% income tax cut, which is at the base of everything Mike Harris is doing, and we would look at restructuring that and taking back the benefits that are going to the top 6% of taxpayers, those people who are making over $80,000 and who constitute only 6% of taxpayers yet are gaining to the tune of $1.5 billion as a benefit from the tax cut. They are the ones who are seeing some benefit in terms of money going in their pockets, and they are also the ones we believe ought to be prepared to reinvest in the services that all of us as Ontarians believe are important.

We're being very up front about that. People can agree or disagree with us on that, but we're being very straightforward because we take our role in opposition very seriously, and we believe that part of our role is not simply to say to Mike Harris, "What you're doing is wrong," but our role is also to say what we believe should be done instead.

I hope in this debate, whether it's in the throne speech, in the budget debate that we'll pick up next week or in the debates that will go on on whatever piece of legislation the government brings forward, we will continue to also talk about the alternatives. We will do that from our end in the New Democratic Party. I look forward to hearing more clearly, more sharply and in greater detail what our Liberal colleagues would do, because that's the only way in which at the end of the day the voters of the province will be able to make a fair and clear choice as to whether they want the Mike Harris slash-and-burn approach, whether they want the airy-fairy approach the Liberals are promising - "We'll give you everything, but we don't know how we're going to pay for it; we're not going to tell you" - or whether they want something that is straightforward and practical, such as we are trying to propose in the New Democratic Party, that says, "These services in health care and social services and education are vital, and here's how we can fund them."

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Hon Mrs Ecker: To the honourable member, who I know is interested in this issue, one of the things we announced last year when we were changing the welfare system was that we were going to change the current patchwork of services for children who found themselves on welfare, where some could get dental benefits and some didn't, and make that mandatory. That is what we have done. It's a mandatory service for children across the province.

We are not downloading public health. People will continue to be able to go to their dentist. We have not changed that; that's not changing tomorrow, contrary to the claims that have been made today. We're going to be caring for more children, there's going to be more money, and also we're not downloading to municipalities, because many municipalities, as I know the honourable member appreciates, are already giving dental services to children. We want to make sure those municipalities will continue to be providing those dental services.

1550

Some of the other claims today - that somehow or other we were going to be asking dentists to be preauthorizing emergency care? With all due respect, that is quite ludicrous, quite frankly, and is certainly not what we're doing. If there is emergency treatment that child needs, clearly what everyone would want is for that professional to give the care that child needs at that time.

Contrary to the claims, we want to have better dental services for children. We've also invited the ODA to be part of the working group that is working on the new program over the course of the next couple of months. We know they have professional expertise to offer us. I'm certainly prepared to accept that. I have been most concerned about the tack they have taken today.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Very briefly, in partial reply to the member for Dovercourt, I've always been one who never really spends a lot of time worrying about something I don't have any control over. I would suggest to the member for Dovercourt that he doesn't have any control over how the Liberal Party will do what it wants to do when the time comes for us to tell you how we would do it.

I can tell you one thing: We won't do it through a social contract that takes away the right of public workers in the province of Ontario.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to congratulate my friend from Dovercourt on his presentation. I find it amusing that my friend from - Essex-Kent, is it?

Mr Crozier: I'm not going to help you.

Mr Wildman: Essex South. As all Liberals are wont to do, he is quite willing to tell us what he won't do but he doesn't want to tell us what his party will do if they have the opportunity. I guess it's because they haven't decided yet and they don't want to confuse anybody with plans that might or might not actually happen.

I want to talk a bit about what my friend from Dovercourt talked about in the throne speech presentation, where this Conservative government has attempted to make itself appear to be listening, to be more compassionate and caring. There was a lot of that in the throne speech. It's interesting that we look at that and listen to that and put it in the context of what else the representatives of the government have been saying.

We know that not long before the throne speech was presented in this House, the Premier spoke out about the various cuts taking place in welfare assistance across Ontario and tried to explain why the government is doing some of these things.

What hit me in trying to determine whether or not this government really is compassionate and caring and really is concerned about good starts for children was the decision by this government to cut $37 a month from pregnant mothers who find themselves on social assistance. This money would be used to assist them to get fresh vegetables and fresh fruit to supplement their diet to ensure that the foetus is healthy. The Premier explained that the reason the government was doing this was that he feared pregnant mothers would buy beer instead of vegetables and fruit. That is the true face of this government.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to respond to the member for Dovercourt's comments. The Minister of Community and Social Services was quite correct in saying that the members should become a little more familiar with the points she was trying to make.

I believe in all sincerity that your comments addressed to the Liberal Party were quite correct. They're prepared to say they're going to do everything but not prepared to tell you anything about the actual cost and how they are prepared to deliver those programs.

In response to your remarks, I believe your party does have a social conscience but also has perhaps proven itself not to be fully accountable for how you're going to do that.

Every responsible government is always looking for a balance. If you look even more recently at the announcements made by our Minister of Health of $1.2 billion - I found it offensive that the member for York South, the health critic for the Liberals, had nothing but criticism. In fact, we're expanding the amount of treatment and the style of treatment the elderly receive in this province.

I know this party is doing its very best to manage its resources without increasing taxes, to manage its resources while trying to balance the budget, a commitment that all people of Ontario want us to follow through on.

So we have before us the choice of one party that wants to spend its way out of every problem, but ultimately that has to be passed on to the taxpayers. On the other side we have the age-old Liberal problem of tax and spend. The taxpayer listening today to the response to the throne speech should clearly face the fact that this government is doing exactly what we promised. We are doing it with compassion and we're always looking for a balance of service to people at the right place -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member's time is up. The member for Dovercourt has two minutes to respond.

Mr Silipo: I really appreciate the comments in response to my statements. I appreciated the fact that the Minister of Community and Social Services chose to respond. I want to say to her a couple of things very quickly. The information I've put forward is not of my own making; it is information that comes from the experts who are delivering these services now. That information includes such things as that single moms will no longer be covered by this amalgamation of the two systems. The minister said that people will be able to continue to go to their own dentist. My understanding is that they will not.

I would be very happy to be proven wrong on these points, because to be proven wrong would mean that at least the quality of service that has been there would continue. I urge the minister to talk with people in the Ontario Dental Association, who are the experts, and others in the field to make sure we're all working from the same base of information on this. She should take their advice and go slower on this and not implement the new changes until everyone is clear about what the impact will be, and not find ourselves here, as we have on many other issues, in a situation where the government implements something and then has to undo it because they've discovered that it isn't working quite the way they thought it would.

I want to say briefly to my colleague from Essex South that I've no interest in trying to control the Liberal Party or what it does. I do have not only an interest but I think I have a responsibility to continue to ask them, on behalf of my caucus and on behalf of Ontarians, that they come clean with their positions. I don't expect them to have a fully fleshed out election platform today. We don't have that yet, quite frankly, and neither does the Tory party. But as we are talking about various important issues, it's incumbent on us that we also answer the important question about how things are going to be funded. That's all I'm getting at. You can't continue to say, "We're going to reinvest hundreds of millions of dollars" in health care or education and not be prepared to say where the money is going to come from.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

1600

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I am very happy and with great pride I'm very delighted to join in the second throne speech of this government.

Before I proceed, I would like to offer my personal condolences to the distinguished member for St Andrew-St Patrick on the passing of her husband, who was an outstanding Canadian, a dynamic entrepreneur, a fabulous broadcaster, a tremendous job creator, a tireless volunteer and, above all, a distinguished Canadian. We are going to miss the kind of leadership in Ontario and Canada that John Bassett brought to this nation.

Etobicoke-Rexdale is a diverse community focused on meeting the challenges of the next century. Like most Ontario citizens, the people of Etobicoke-Rexdale are dedicated and hardworking, many of whom have come from diverse nations, practically every nation of the world, to this part of the new city of Toronto. They have brought their families here to raise a better family, realize their dreams and make Ontario the place they want to live in, work in and raise a family.

During my two terms as an Etobicoke city councillor, I had the opportunity to bear witness at first hand to the irresponsible policies of the two previous provincial governments which wreaked havoc on the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale. In what specific ways? Two that I can recall. It was near the end of the prosperity of the 1980s when we had a budget brought down by the Liberal government of that day, with the dreaded Nixonian commercial concentration tax. This particular tax that we've been reminded of by members opposite so often was a direct intrusion into the operations of local government. Primarily, it had a very devastating impact on the hotel industry, not only in the Etobicoke-Rexdale area but right across Metropolitan Toronto and throughout Ontario. It was a real job killer.

Secondly, almost within that same budget of 1989 we had the introduction of the employer health tax. This beautiful little tax helped to kill off even more jobs just as Ontario was moving into a very severe depression. Some people called it a recession, depending on what end of the microscope you looked through and what level of experience you had had as a worker and family person in the Ontario community.

Quite a contrast in the last seven years, quite a contrast since June 8, 1995, when the Harris government got elected. We came into power facing a huge deficit, a large debt, significant unemployment and large growth in the expansion of the state.

What is the current state of affairs today? If you talk to many people from all walks of life, you will find they are more confident, they are more energetic, they are more enthusiastic. We have people who have been out of the labour force for more than five to seven years who have rejoined. They are getting work. Why? Because they've done some training. They have found a place in the new Ontario economy.

If you look at the job numbers today, we have approximately 337,000 new private sector jobs being created. Consumer confidence is up. The Ontario economy has seen consumer confidence grow by about 22.9%. Housing starts are up significantly. Meanwhile, we have managed to reduce Ontario's deficit by $6.1 billion. Ontario's income tax has been reduced by 22.9%, a significant reversal to the years of the dreaded stupid tax increases that we had experienced across this province, making Ontario a highly uncompetitive place in which not only to try to invest but to raise a family.

While the economic statistics paint a bright picture, the strength of the economy can be seen in other ways throughout communities across this province. In particular, in my riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale there are four significant ventures that have taken hold. In the pharmaceutical industry, Apotex/Torpharm pharmaceuticals has invested nearly $175 million in a new expansion. Torpharm is the only Canadian pharmaceutical facility dedicated solely to US exports. It is an important facility for our riding, representing high-paying job creation in a knowledge-based industry.

The second significant facility in construction is Shoppers World Albion Mall, constructing its first expansion in over 25 years. In making their announcement, the shop owners said their future is bright.

A third example of how the economy is turning around in my area is that the constituents recently saw an announcement by the Toronto Congress Centre that it will be doubling its exhibition space by nearly one-half million square feet. This will make for more tourism dollars in west Toronto, more jobs in the Etobicoke community, construction jobs and event-planning jobs in the whole exhibitions industry.

The next significant facility that has announced and is actually in construction is a $20-million expansion in major renovations at Woodbine Racetrack in west Toronto. This investment will also bring high, well-paying jobs and tourist dollars to the Etobicoke economy.

These are but four examples of the many facilities and people that are benefiting from a powerful economic environment that this government has helped to shape.

Since the first throne speech, this government has made significant changes to building a better health care system in Ontario: a system that is consistent with the needs of our changing, growing and aging population; a system that will provide increased and improved access to high-quality services for all people at every stage of their lives.

The commitment of the Ontario government is not only reinforced in health care initiatives but also in the major, key area of the fulfilment of a vision of a better health care system for this province, and that is the significant announcement in the past few days by Premier Harris and Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer of the $1.2-billion expansion not only in facilities but in programming for long-term care.

Personally, I have been involved in many situations where people have been experiencing problems in getting access to long-term care in this province, in getting enhanced home support care. We are going to be addressing these concerns through this initiative and it will bring more completed, effective, realistic types of health care concerns and vision to Ontario and its citizens.

We're also focusing on the special health care needs that children require. So far, the government has introduced numerous programs to assist with the growth and development of our children, contrary to the assertions of members opposite.

Only a few days ago, we announced a massive reinvestment in speech and language pathology programs for our youngest children. Because of the previous governments' not taking sufficient action in this whole area of prevention and early intervention, we had a situation where only 1,800 Toronto children received the help they required with speech and language difficulties - only 1,800 children. Now, in the new scenario, over the next three years you will see, starting in September 1998, $3.1 million specifically committed by the health ministry to deal with this problem. Over the next three years you will also see significant reinvestment, significant new expenditures to ensure that over 14,000 preschool children in Metropolitan Toronto, in the new city of Toronto, will get the help they need and become better prepared to enter our education system.

From increased spending in speech and language pathology programs to providing a healthy breakfast program to children who come to school hungry in many instances, this government will continue to protect and provide assistance to Ontario's high-risk kids. I am sincerely working hard to ensure that our children will have a bright and healthy future in that area.

As you know, over the last two years this government has worked hard to make reform of our education system fundamental to the new economy that all our young people, in fact all the citizens of this province who are employable and are seeking work out there in terms of the new millennium, will have to get geared up for, whether it be job training, going back to school, adult education, ESL and all the other amenities and needs of the education system we have had to deal with.

1610

Over the past few years we have seen previous governments spend lots of money studying the system, making recommendations but shelving them without really making any significant changes in the system. Witness Education Minister Johnson coming to Highfield school just recently to announce changes in kindergarten. What I found amazing about the announcement was that there had not been any real changes in the curriculum for kindergarten children since 1944. That's over 50 years. That is one small but very significant example of the need to restructure the whole education system.

When we were dealing with the teachers during the Bill 160 debate in this province, the question was posed by many people, including myself, that if the education system is performing as well as everybody believes it is or it ought to, why is it that there is such a continuing gap, a widening chasm, between curriculum development and the growing job market? Why is it that we have in this province today and have had over the last decade or more a youth unemployment rate of nearly 15%? In fact, you can probably apply that statistic across this great nation. If the education system has been performing as well as the educators claimed, why weren't the young people getting the jobs they were expecting to get when they left school?

It's a complex answer, but you can be sure that one of the things that was lacking in trying to explain that chasm - those who were saying that educational standards were pretty good, and the reality in the external world where we had an increasing youth unemployment rate - was that the school boards and the governments of the day certainly weren't dealing with the technological dimension of the challenge. If they were, then why weren't previous Liberal and NDP governments investing in science and technology in the classroom? Why did they prevent our children from learning about the latest technologies?

Those aren't just rhetorical questions. All you have to do is go into any school in this province, be it a Catholic board or a public school board, and to this day you will see that a large number of these boards have not got on with the need for getting computers into the classroom. You can go into any number of schools. Don't be misled by my advocacy of that particular example, that a computer in and of itself is the panacea to the problems we face. It is simply one of the tools we should have had in place over the last decade. Even at this point in time today, even with the initiatives of this government, we still face an enormous challenge in that area.

In other words, there is a cumulative history here dealing with this whole situation of making sure that our young people were not only adequately educated as thinking citizens but that they were also equipped technologically to go out and face the new economy that so many other nations have got on with, the job of providing those essential tools in the areas of computer software and hardware in our educational institutions. There is a glaring lack of providing those tools by the previous two governments, and this one still has a lot of work to do in this particular area compared to other nations throughout the world.

By not addressing this problem over the last 10 to 15 years, we have in effect neglected the opportunities that ought to be available to children of any background, to young adults coming out of the school system, out of our community college system, for the jobs in the new economy. Practically everything you touch today, whether you go to fill up your car with gasoline at the station, turn on a microwave, fly in an airplane or go to get some coin out of a bank, you have a chip dictating how you carry on. That is why we need to get on with making sure we provide effective and sufficient educational technologies for our young people as they face the new millennium.

Finally, I want to make some comments about the references I keep hearing from across the aisle to Bill 160. Some members, it would appear, seem to think that Bill 160 has not been passed. In fact, we have moved on from that point in time. We're still hearing petitions about Bill 160. When we look at what the Leader of the Opposition would do, I'm appalled to think of what he might do should he ever get over here. I want to quote the leader on his varying positions on Bill 160.

He started out by stating in a scrum last November 27, "We've got to start by scrapping Bill 160." Okay, that sounds pretty clear. But no, we haven't ended. On the same day, he said, "There are going to be some parts of my legislation that won't be dissimilar from Bill 160." I wonder what he meant by that, "dissimilar"?

Does that mean that if he scrapped Bill 160, we'd return to a situation where school boards have unaccountable authority for taxing the property owner in the province, that we'd return to a system of no testing - goodness gracious, no testing - that we'd have trips by school trustees and lots of other folks to all parts of the world and then they'll provide us with reports about things that will never get implemented? It would mean, I guess, a return to the type of school boards we had before. I hope this is not the future of this province.

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

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I really want to thank the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, Mr Hastings, for his comments. Unfortunately, he didn't talk much about what was in the throne speech or what was not in the throne speech. The member finished his comments talking about education. I have to tell you, I'm shocked that there was one line in that entire speech - a whole hour we sat here - that talked about post-secondary education.

Young people in this province have said that they cannot afford the tuitions that have been foisted upon them by this government. They have said they're being saddled by a debt burden which is $25,000 on average, they've estimated, and that this is beyond their capabilities. So 25% of the student loans are going towards bankruptcies because of the direct actions of this government.

You would think that in the throne speech you would want to talk about some measures to assist young people in this province, some measures that were going to help young people. They've been crying out for their needs. They were in the streets here in Toronto and across this province; they occupied buildings. They said, "We need help," but nothing, not a word, not a piece of ink which was of any help to students or post-secondary institutions in this province.

It shameful that this government has completely abandoned young people of this province, that they've made things harder for young people, that they've placed a greater burden on their families. It's about time that somebody stood up and said, "I'm willing to help." By the way, there is somebody. It is Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party.

1620

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): In reply to some of the comments made by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, let me focus on his end comments with respect to Bill 160. I think I heard the member say that he was surprised that some members of this House are still dealing with Bill 160 as if it had not passed, and he made a reference to the petitions that are being raised, a petition that was specifically raised by my colleague from Algoma today.

If the member thinks that because Bill 160 has been passed the public's concern about education, particularly this government's direction with respect to education, is somehow gone, he ought to think again, because the fact of the matter is that two priorities top every poll with respect to what people are concerned about: They are concerned about what's happening to quality health care in this province and what this government is doing to public education.

If anything, the debate about Bill 160 certainly mobilized parents, teachers and people who have an education in the system even if their children aren't in it right now with respect to what the government is doing. People see clearly that the changes the government made with respect to Bill 160 are all geared to invent a crisis, to have a crisis in the education system, so that then you will have parents who will call for the ability to have charter schools or private schools, so that money that should go into a good, publicly funded education system will be diverted into a private system.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of Bill 160. People are still feeling it in my community now. The boards that are dealing with the impacts of that bill are now announcing to the public the number of schools that will be closed. So, for all the Premier's rhetoric about no cuts to classrooms, in my community the boards have already announced the closure of three community schools and the classrooms that went with them. Now the boards want to put kids on a bus and bring them to a big school in the city, quite against the wishes of the parents involved. The impacts of this bill continue. We're going to continue to raise the issue, we're going to continue to raise petitions, because people's concern about what you're doing to education has not gone away.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I was most interested in the comments of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I was particularly interested in the long-term-care portion of his address, because we in Algoma-Manitoulin have particular concerns about long-term care, nursing home beds in particular, and I speak to the House about Elliot Lake and its need for nursing home beds. This is a community that has done a tremendous job of revitalizing itself, reinventing itself and is now known as one of the premier retirement communities in Ontario because it has a wealth of services. In Elliot Lake, we have lost half our hospital beds. Half our hospital beds are gone. Many of the people in those hospital beds were in what you might call a nursing home category, but they were in the hospital.

Sister Sarah Quackenbush, the executive director of the hospital, says that 51 seniors have had to leave the community to get nursing home care because it's just not available in Elliot Lake today. It would be easily demonstrated that we have lost 50 to 60 long-term-care beds in the community. But we're asking the government, out of the $150 million that is being allocated to long-term care, which I suggest is grossly inadequate given the situation, nevertheless to do what 6,000 people in Elliot Lake requested by way of petition, and probably the entire population of 14,000 agree with, and that is to put those long-term-care beds, those nursing home beds, in the community in the first announcement that we may see. I think it is only reasonable. This community needs it, wants it, and your government has contributed significantly to the problem.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr Hastings: In response to the comments of the member for Oriole, I would like him to revisit the whole issue of student financing under OSAP and look at what this government has done in terms of the last two budgets. Specifically, point 1, the student learning opportunities fund was established in 1996 on a matching dollar basis for both the community colleges and the universities. In the 1997 budget, the universities were not allowed to continue to participate in the program, but it was continued for the community colleges. Look at the impact of that particular fund in terms of opportunities. Also, look at last year's budget in terms of the commitment of this government in terms of long-term financing for student aid in this province for learning opportunities. It will be marvellous when he sees what has been accomplished. He should re-educate himself on that.

With respect to long-term care, the federal Minister of Health has talked about the necessity for a national program of home care. He has been talking about it for about six months to a year. We haven't talked about it; we've actually acted on it. This is what your critic for health over there has been advocating for the last six to nine months: "Where's the vision? Where's the money from the restructuring going into long-term care?" Voilà. This is the product. Here are the specific products, the specific results of this whole initiative.

With respect to Bill 160, there is no doubt we're not going back, unless you love the status quo. If the status quo is so great, why do we have such a large youth unemployment rate in this country?

The Acting Speaker: The time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Crozier: It is nice to hear him admit that we have a large unemployment problem in Ontario. I guess this government has been in charge of that for the last three years.

I'm pleased today to rise to give some comments on the speech from the throne. Occasionally, one would suggest that it might be interesting to break from tradition and rather than have a speech from the throne, maybe it should be a speech to the throne by the citizens of Ontario. The reason I say that is because I think this speech from the throne did not exactly a disservice but didn't quite pay service to one of the major industries of Ontario, that being agriculture.

Today I don't want to be provocative. Frankly, some people say the speech from the throne is a lot of puffery and that there's nothing in it and no one should pay any attention to it anyway, that it's really when we get on to budgets and legislation and get really into the meat of what a Legislature does that we should be concerned with that.

I want to make reference particularly to agriculture today. In the speech from the throne, what was said was positive. I want to acknowledge that. What was said was this - and it was said in 16 words: "Agriculture and food industries leading the nation in farm cash receipts and value-added food production." Being from a rural community, from Essex county, I acknowledge that and I appreciate that. It's because of the hardworking agricultural residents of our great province that this is a true statement.

My problem is that in a speech from the throne that runs pages long, I would have thought that one of the greatest industries in Ontario would certainly be given more than 16 words. Therefore, what I'd like to do today is, combined with my words, I'd like to put in the record the words of others. That's why I suggest that when we speak about the speech from the throne we should also take into consideration what many of the residents of Ontario would like to say.

I read from a news release from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, "Throne Speech Recognizes Ontario Agriculture as Leading the Nation." This press release does indeed quote from the throne speech where "leading the nation in farm cash receipts and value-added food production" is mentioned. It also says the OFA welcomes the rural youth job strategy program. I'm not sure exactly what has been spent in that job strategy program to date, but certainly in Essex county we held a forum on youth job strategy and passed on our recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture.

1630

What this news release does say is just as important in another part of it. It says: "From the beginning, the Farmers of Ontario," through a reinvestment program, "has stressed the urgency for the government of Ontario to reinvest in these programs, which are: research, the environment, market development and risk management. Ontario agriculture can only continue to be a competitive force in a global and domestic economy if the government begins to enhance the agricultural budget on a yearly basis, beginning now."

On the one hand they are saying, "Thank you very much for recognizing how we're leading the nation," but on the other hand suggesting areas in which the province of Ontario, through its government and through its citizens, should begin to enhance the agricultural budget on a yearly basis.

The OFA news release goes on to say, "We are now calling on the government to reinvest in the agriculture industry as well." The farm industry has taken steps to suggest how that might be done. They don't just idly say, "Come on government, please, it's time to reinvest in one of the greatest industries in this province." They also make some suggestions on how that might be done. By referring to these suggestions and getting them on the record, I want to indicate that I wholeheartedly support their effort in doing so.

The Farmers of Ontario have recently met with many of the MPPs from this House, with the Minister of Agriculture and several other ministers as well, both rural and urban, and that meeting was to urge them to allocate new money to the agriculture budget. In the few minutes that I have, I am going to point out a few areas where the agriculture budget, quite frankly, has suffered drastically. We know that once having taken this money out of agriculture, it's exceeding difficult to have it put back in where it would do the most good.

I quote from the media release of the Farmers of Ontario: "Employment in the automotive and auto parts industry would have to quadruple in size to be as important to Ontario's total economy as agriculture and related services are to rural Ontario's economy."

I think anyone who has read that or listened to it would be quite surprised to find out the magnitude by which the auto industry - we think the auto industry is the driving force behind the economy in the province of Ontario. It's the driving force behind the economy of the United States. But it would have to quadruple in size before it would have the same effect as the agriculture community in the province of Ontario. Therefore, I think that these agricultural representatives, the 37 farm organizations across the province, deserve our support, they deserve our consideration, and they certainly are prepared to back up their suggestions with some good, sound ideas.

Every $1 million created by agriculture and related services in the province of Ontario generates approximately 31 jobs.

In the area of research it said:

"Agricultural research provides a foundation for agricultural productivity in Ontario. It allows us to make the best use of our soil, water and land resources in the production of high-quality food and compete on a global level. Right now, the provincial government invests half as much in its agriculture and food sector as other provinces. This needs to change. There is still much to be done." This is a quote from Ken Porteous, the Tender Fruit Producers' Marketing Board.

We can see that they have made this suggestion that research is an area that can become an engine in our economy. When we talk about the benefits of research, I can recall living in an agricultural community when a great deal of time, energy, effort and labour went into the production of tomato products for processing and how, through research, they've now developed a tomato that can be machine-harvested and therefore harvested more economically. The production per acre has increased dramatically, and it's only through research that we can do this. So there is a benefit to that.

I quote as well about the environment from the piece of material that was put out called Rebuild, Restore, Reinvest...Secure the Future of Agriculture:

"`OMAFRA has played a key role in all of our environmental initiatives. We couldn't have progressed as quickly without the ministry's expertise, support and funding. Despite our gains, we are facing new environmental challenges all the time and we need to extend our environmental efforts much further.' Peter Oosterhoff, Dairy Farmers of Ontario."

What they're saying here is that we haven't done enough. We've had help along the way - part of the concern in my area and part of the concern that resulted from a rural tour of Ontario that Pat Hoy and John Cleary conducted is that there will be a further reduction in the OMAFRA offices and the OMAFRA assistance that they receive around the province. I hope that's not the case.

Market development: If you improve production, if you improve productivity, if you improve your product, if you have the best product that anyone can grow, not only in the Dominion of Canada but I think we grow the best products in North America, you also have to have market development in order to sell those products. I again quote from the document:

"At a time when the global economy is of such great importance, we don't understand why the government of Ontario would lag so far behind other provinces in its support for agricultural marketing and trade."

Ed Segsworth, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, has made those comments and I think made them in a constructive and positive way. He's saying: "Look, if we have the best products in the world, if we have the best products with which to feed our citizens, then what we have to do in a global market is to market them. We have to get those products out and sell them."

Consumer confidence. I quote again:

"As well as protecting Ontario consumers, OMAFRA's food grading and inspection services also have a role to play in helping producers access foreign markets which have strict health and safety regulations." Bob Down of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association says this.

I attended the opening of an office in Essex South most recently. One of their main responsibilities is the quality of food that we produce in our agricultural industry. I must say I can support this comment that OMAFRA's food grading and inspection services have, are and will play a significant role in marketing and distributing our agricultural products and doing it in a way that those who buy our products can feel that they're safe.

Under the area of risk management:

"`Agriculture, unlike any other business, is unique because we have to deal with natural elements beyond our control. Risk management programs are an integral part of the agricultural industry. We need to reinvest in these....' Wayne Newman, Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council."

Those are the main suggestions, the main areas of concern that are contained in the document from the 37 farm organizations in Ontario which they named Rebuild, Restore, Reinvest...Secure the Future of Agriculture in Ontario.

1640

As I said at the outset, I support their point of view. I know they have passed these recommendations on to the Minister of Agriculture and I support him in any effort he can make to encourage his government, the government of Ontario, to follow those recommendations.

I want to point out a couple of recent incidents that have been expressed to us on our farm tour that may clarify a couple of issues. As I said, Minister, I wanted my comments today not to be provocative but to be supportive and to support the agricultural industry, but recently it has bothered some, who have passed their comments on to me, that the Ministry of Agriculture has tried to make a couple of claims, and perhaps the minister will be able to help me in this area if he chooses to reply to this, that spending on the community reinvestment fund, ice storm spending, and Ministry of Finance tax rebates on farm buildings and other spending from other ministries should be counted as agricultural spending. If that's the case, I really don't think it would be fair to suggest that.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It's not agriculture spending. You know that.

Mr Crozier: Yes. I'm pleased to know that, because we know that the community reinvestment fund was totally municipal. The ice storm spending - and I certainly support that in support of those who were disadvantaged by this winter's ice storm. I only hope we get the same support for, to a much lesser degree, flooding that has been taking place in Essex county. But that wasn't a budgeted program; it's a program that governments have to react to on the spot and one to which we encourage citizens of Ontario to contribute on their own as well.

All we're saying, Minister, is that we support you in any effort you can make, and support the 37 farm organizations in Ontario that have made these recommendations in any way you can. Those of us in rural Ontario - I particularly speak for those in Essex South - would have appreciated it more if agriculture was given a bit more recognition in the throne speech. I know it's a limited document; perhaps the 16 words it was given were limited to that because there just wasn't an awful lot more time allotted to that ministry.

In conclusion, I want to take the couple of minutes I have left to make one or two comments on the critic role that I have within the Liberal Party, that being the one of seniors issues. I have brought this up with the Minister of Health on a couple of occasions and I hope to bring it back to the Minister of Health in the future, but we have an interesting situation where couples are separated because one or the other of the spouses has to be admitted to a nursing home. These separations are not voluntary; they're involuntary separations. I brought it to the minister's attention that due to these involuntary separations, much of the couple's income that may have exceeded $24,000 is spent to keep one of the spouses in a nursing home. The result is that the copayment or user fee of the spouse in the nursing home's drug prescription is $2, but the spouse who's left at home, who may in fact have an income of less than $16,000, has to pay the higher $6.11 user fee with the $100 deductible.

The federal government recognizes involuntary separation. In this small bit of my comment today that I will pass on to the Minister of Health, I only hope the Minister of Health would consider involuntary separation for seniors as being something that could be looked at so that the remaining spouse, who has a very limited income, may also be eligible for the $2 user fee.

I thank you for your attention today. I particularly thank the rest of the members of the House for their rapt attention to this. I appreciate the opportunity to have given these viewpoints.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions or comments?

Mr Wildman: I appreciated the comments of my friend from Essex South with regard to the spectacular lack of commitment by this government to agriculture in the province. I must say, to be fair, that the minister has been very quick to respond to the concerns of my constituents in Algoma district in establishing an ag rep's office in the farm community rather than in the urban centre. It has been very much welcome. Members of his staff and I were happy to open that office there. I would tell the minister that I was happy to open the office, but my one concern is that we don't have an ag rep. We have the office.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The office is not empty.

Mr Wildman: No, it's not empty. There's a clerk there. The farmers are very happy to have it there. It's just that I would urge the minister to move to appoint the ag rep.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We almost had one, you know.

Mr Wildman: Good. The farmers are also very concerned about the lack of funding for the ministry that was referred to by my friend from Essex South. I wonder if the government, after having made this change with the farm tax rebate to make it into a tax relief measure for the farmers rather than a rebate, also recognizes the serious effects this will have for rural municipalities and the possibility that farmers may find that the tax rate on their residences goes up exponentially as the tax rate drops on the farm land and on the farm buildings.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I too want to comment on my colleague from Essex South's presentation on the throne speech. I want to remind him that I also met with the Farmers of Ontario yesterday, as a matter of fact, and it was a very cordial meeting. I reminded them that yes, this is one of the ministries that did get more funding since the present government has been in place. We took over in 1995 and then we had a slight increase in 1996, another slight increase in 1997-98. We're kind of proud of that.

I want to remind them that $41 million in research and development annually gets spent oriented towards the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. That's more than the province of Quebec and the province of Alberta put together.

The interesting thing is that we still have colleges of agriculture, food and technology. I want to remind my colleagues that the enrolment is up in Alfred, in Kemptville, in Ridgetown and at the University of Guelph, up by between 10% and 20%. When young people choose the agrifood sector to obtain their education in, that says to me that the industry is in good health. We've had a turnaround from three years ago, where the enrolment in these colleges is rising.

And $5.6 billion is exported annually in agrifood production from the province of Ontario - very important to our economy - and that's rising. It's 167% more than it was 10 years ago. We're pretty proud of that as a government and we're encouraging that very strongly. We have $30 million in a rural job strategy fund.

The ice storm: Yes, we had cheques for farmers on January 29. No one else can really say that they had money that quickly.

1650

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I'm delighted to respond to the speech of my colleague from Essex South. I can see that he's pretty much aware of what the needs are in the agricultural sector, because he comes from Leamington, where the tomato growers are. But just to go back on the market development for the agricultural sector, on Monday 11 people came from Cameroon, Africa, to visit my riding. We went down to visit Marc Bercier's farm, a soya producer. He was telling me that he could expand because the demand is there locally, but he hasn't got the tools or the money to do the marketing outside of this province. I really feel that in the speech we should have had something that covers the transforming or the marketing for the agricultural products of Ontario. We have very little to market our product.

Also, I was up to see the Kaisin farm, and I'm sure the minister has received some calls from the Kaisin farm. They lost over 150 sheep during the ice storm. They are still waiting for help. Four months have passed since the ice storm, and they are still waiting for help. Those people lost over $100,000 during the period of Easter because they usually sell a lot of lambs during the Easter period. But again, in the throne speech we haven't seen anything. We mentioned the ice storm a little bit, but let me tell you, the ice storm shows that eastern Ontario is playing a major role in the economy of Ontario.

Ms Martel: I want to congratulate the member for Essex South on his remarks here today. I was pleased to listen to the go-round from other members as they commented on your remarks. I'm sure you're going to want to remark to the Minister of Agriculture, who is here today, that he's got the most creative accounting I've ever seen.

If you take a look at the estimates and the actual amounts that were spent in agriculture under this Conservative government, it is quite plain to see that the spending on agriculture has decreased under this Conservative government, not increased. This despite the promise that was made by the minister when he was in the third party and by his leader, who is now Premier, that in fact there would be no cuts to the agricultural budget. I wonder what kind of creative accounting he is using.

Maybe the member for Essex South would like to ask the question of where the money is being spent. I'd like to just refer to an article that was done by Allan Fotheringham. I think it will give you some idea of where the Tories are spending the money that I think and I think the member thinks should have been spent in agriculture. He says, "This comes with the news that one Tom Long, chief strategist in Premier Mike Harris's 1995 election victory, has a ready explanation for his inclusion in Pork Ontario." Now that's not pork as in pork pig, but it is pork as in porkbarrel.

What he says is: "By wondrous happenstance, Long's firm was awarded a US$250,000 bundle to search for the new head honcho for Ontario Hydro, which we now know is closely related to Pork Ontario. Long, the brains behind the Premier, since the Premier has none" - this is in Allan's words - "also, as it turns out, charged Ontario Hydro a further $6,825, at an hourly rate of $650. It was, he explains, because he spent 10.5 hours" - not 10, not 11, but 10.5 - "helping work on speeches for one Bill Farlinger."

So, if the member wants to know where the money is -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Essex South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Crozier: As I said at the outset to the minister, I really didn't want to be provocative today. I tried to take a positive approach, but when it comes to spending, the information I have - and it's a long list; I'm not so sure I can get through it in two minutes: cancellation of the Niagara tender fruit lands program, $2.5 million; administration cuts, $1.2 million; cuts to field office services, $2 million; the Brighton veterinary lab closure, half a million; cuts to the Foodland Ontario marketing program - and they ask for marketing in that document I was reading from - $1 million; cuts to financial assistance programs restructuring, $300,000; cancellation of the dairy audit program, $600,000; cuts to the agriculture investment strategy program, $1.5 million; cuts to the tile drainage program, $1.5 million; cuts to agricultural grants, $730,000; cuts to the University of Guelph research programs - and research was emphasized in the document I read from - $2 million; labour adjustment allowance, $1.539 million; cuts to GRIP and NISA programs, $11.3 million; closure of the Milton Ontario Agricultural Museum, $1.8 million; restructuring of agricultural programs including further field office closures, further cuts to GRIP and NISA, and cuts to the international marketing program, $8.3 million; eliminating of ministry services, including requiring commodity groups to pay for the administration of grading enforcement and regulation, and cuts to laboratory services, research programs and education programs, $31.3 million; administrative savings - I'm inclined to agree with administrative savings - $10.7 million; and cuts to food land program promotion and cuts to the municipal outlet drainage program, $6.4 million.

These total $85.169 million. Perhaps we can discuss those at a later date when I feel in a more provocative mood.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Ms Martel: I am pleased to participate in the debate - I believe the amendment to the amendment to the throne speech is where we are at this point - and I wanted to begin by saying that as I listened to the throne speech being read by Her Honour, I was struck by two things.

First, it was the most blatant attempt by the government to now try to portray itself as somehow being kinder and gentler.

I was particularly struck by the line that your government was listening. I guess the government, in all the extensive polling it has done, has figured out, as everyone else has figured out, that if anything, what the government hasn't done is listen to people. Whether you talk about what happened on the megacity debate, whether you talk about what happened around Bill 160 and people's concerns with that, a whole host of issues, this government has not listened. I think this government is hearing very strongly from people as it does its polling that this is one of the main criticisms about this government.

The government tried to say on a number of occasions in a number of places in the throne speech that they were listening, that they were going to slow down the agenda, that the agenda from here on in was somehow going to be kinder and gentler, that people were going to be happier about what was happening. That is a far cry from, I think, the reality that most Ontarians are facing now as they look at the cuts that have happened to health care, the cuts that have happened to education, the cuts that have happened to social services, the cuts that are happening to people's communities.

The second thing I was particularly struck by was the gap between the excessive government rhetoric and the reality that is facing people in the province today.

The government talked about excellence in education. That was part of the rhetoric. The reality is that this government has withdrawn almost $1 billion from education since its arrival in this place, and that has had a profound impact on classrooms and the quality of education in this province.

You only have to go back to your riding and talk to parents about the increased class size and what that's doing to their children; about the cuts to special education and what that's doing to some of the most vulnerable in our classrooms today; about the cuts to art and to music and to recreation programs and the impact that's having on kids and the quality of not only their education but their social wellbeing as they move through the education system.

Talk to people about the custodial staff who have been let go, about the teachers who have been laid off, about the non-teaching staff - secretaries etc - who are being let go. This government has had a profound impact on the quality of education. It has nothing to do with excellence. You can't take that kind of money out of education and provide a quality public education in this province.

What concerns me is that the funding formula, as it is structured, continues to make cuts right across this province and continues to leave boards with the very difficult decision of having to close schools, lay off more teachers, cut special-ed totally - if they haven't yet - and any number of other serious problems that will lead not to quality education but to a much poorer education for all the students who are coming through at this time.

Look at the comment the government made with respect to front-line nursing staff. The government said that more front-line nursing staff will be hired as a result of the announcement they made on long-term care. The government conveniently neglected to talk about the 10,000 nurses who have been laid off by this government, since it came to this place, in the acute care sector, in the hospital sector, the 10,000 nurses who now are not providing quality care to some of the people who are most in need, who require acute care in Ontario's hospitals. There is a huge gap in reality with respect to what those workers deal with now, as they are laid off, and with respect to patients right across this province, in hospital after hospital, who can't get the care they need, who now have to rely on their families to come in and provide the care that used to be provided by a qualified nurse.

1700

I was also struck by the gap with respect to the athletes and youth and funding for amateur sports in this province. I was very proud of our Ontario athletes who participated at the Olympics. We all were. It was good to have them recognized in the throne speech. The irony is that this government was the one that cut, under the former minister, funding for youth programs, youth recreation in this province. How will we fund those people we want to be, hopefully, our athletes for the future? There was a huge gap there between what we all saw and what we were all proud of during the Olympics and what the government really did with respect to programs for youth to get our athletes there.

What most concerned me was both the gap and the very blatant omission with respect to children. There was one section only in the throne speech, as far as I can see, that talked about kids. It said the following: "The government has already increased the funds available for early learning. World-renowned expert Dr Fraser Mustard and child advocate the honourable Margaret McCain will head a study of early learning, and make recommendations on how best to prepare young and preschool children for a lifetime of education." That's the government rhetoric.

The reality is that it was this government that decided that junior kindergarten would be optional, no longer mandatory, despite the myriad of studies that have been done which clearly demonstrate the benefit of intervention early on in the school system of our kids, and how that benefits them, how that ensures they will have better opportunities. It was this government that got rid of mandatory JK.

It was this government as well that decided it would cut funding to junior kindergarten, making it very difficult for those boards that wanted to continue with their JK programs to do that. I think under the new funding formula that you've announced, you'll see more and more boards, the ones that still have JK programs continuing, being put in a position where they'll have to get rid of them.

There's a huge contradiction between asking Dr Fraser Mustard now to do a study and not implementing some of the major recommendations he has already put to this government with respect to how we should intervene early with kids in a number of areas, education included. We're going to do a study, while at the same time the government has already made major cuts to the education of preschool children.

What was most serious for me was the gap with respect to anything else to do with children. The throne speech was silent on the terrible scenario that faces Ontario now, which is that more children than ever before live in poverty in this province. It is a national shame that in a time when we are very prosperous in this province, and we are, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, and at the bottom end more and more children are going without adequate housing, without adequate nutrition, without adequate health care. We should not be in a position today, and we are - I cannot believe the government had nothing to say about this - that one in four kids in this city alone lives in poverty now. Surely, this Mike Harris government should have had something to say about what it intends to do to deal with the very serious and very shocking and frankly appalling situation.

You only have to look at where the government has been with respect to kids to understand why the government didn't come forward with a strategy. Frankly, in any number of portfolios over the last two years this government has harmed children by its cuts to programs, by its funding cuts has done more to harm children and to ensure that more kids live in poverty than ever before. So it's no wonder they had nothing positive to say about kids in this throne speech.

Let me just run through some of what this government has done to kids in the last two years. This government cancelled the Early Years project. It was a voluntary project that we put in place to allow a pilot for full-day JK and SK across the province. We took that from the work we did on the Royal Commission on Learning, from their document, Love of Learning. It also will be one the studies that Dr Fraser Mustard will probably look at and I hope he will come forward with the same recommendation. But this government cancelled that project as one of the first things it did in the first six weeks that it was here in this place.

Second, the government made JK optional. The government also cut funding on the education side to those boards that wanted to try to continue with their JK programming. As I said earlier, under the new funding formula, I think most boards will have to totally eliminate JK if they still have been able to carry it this far.

There has been a $1-billion cut in education. It has affected special ed, libraries, all of the things I talked about earlier.

Finally, the government, under Bill l60, also announced there would be no more capital available to build child care centres in new high schools. If you are a young person who is trying to get back into the education system, to get your education, to get going again on a better start, you can't even be guaranteed that in the high school you go to your child will be able to be looked after. You will have to worry about informal child care arrangements and whether or not you feel secure with that.

If the government really cared about even education, as it purports to in the throne speech, none of these cuts would have happened, none of these cuts would have been made under the education budget, because they have all dramatically affected kids.

What has the government done with respect to child care? The government in its download exercise has dumped a number of the costs of child care on to the municipalities. The minister wanted to say they would pass a regulation that would still force municipalities to provide child care, but if the municipality doesn't have the money to do that, then who will?

This government, when it cancelled the Jobs Ontario Training program, already forced the loss of a number of child care spaces that were being funded through that program. Now we have the scenario that municipalities, trying to cope with all of the other costs that have been dumped on them by this government, are going to try to scramble to find some money to pay for child care. I think, regrettably, that in a number of municipalities you will see the child care spaces that are there being cut or being eliminated entirely because the municipalities won't have the money to continue to pay for them.

The government also, in its budget of 1996, announced $200 million for an expansion of child care spaces. It was supposed to be $40 million over five years. In the first year there was not a single penny spent by this government for the expansion of spaces - not a single penny in the budget year 1996-97. After we lost that $40 million, the Treasurer came to this place and announced that now they were going to redirect the money that was left. It wasn't $200 million any more; it was down to $160 million, even though the $40 million hadn't been spent. It was going to redirect that money into a tax credit for parents using the child care system in the province and it would go into effect this year.

The problem with the tax credit is that you've got to pay for child care up front. People who are living in poverty or who have a low income in this province don't have the kind of money that it takes to pay for a child care space up front. That's why we need to have more subsidized spaces in the province. That's what we thought some of the $200 million was going to be spent on. But instead, this government has decided they'll give a tax credit. The problem will be that the parents, most of them single, who need a space most, will be completely unable to access it because the government has done nothing to deal with subsidized spaces and because they can't afford to pay for the child care up front in order to get a tax credit back.

Finally, the government - and the Minister of Community and Social Services was the one responsible for this - brought forward a report in September 1996 which looked at proposals for a major change in how child care was delivered in the province. While there hasn't been much said with respect to that document, certainly the minister, in her new position, has not said whether or not she now agrees with some of those recommendations or whether or not the government is just going to let that report go by the wayside. I would argue that it should let that report go by the wayside because what it did was to affect child care in a number of ways, all of them, frankly, very detrimental.

1710

The government proposed to eliminate some of the protection regarding the annual licensing for child care operators, weaken important health and safety standards in child care centres, increase the number of children to be cared for by one staff, reduce some of the physical requirements for child care facilities like natural light, reduce the qualifications for staff caring for school-age children, eliminate or reduce wage subsidies for child care staff, let home providers care for more children after hours, reduce the support available through resource centres to help licensed child care centres.

This is where the government was heading with respect to child care, and these proposals were totally opposed by the child care community because they recognized that it would not provide quality child care but a patchwork system of spaces across the province, some of them well funded, some not well funded, with different standards of care depending on who the operator was and so on. I hope the minister at some point soon will stand in her place and say that the government was wrong to even consider this direction, the report is going nowhere, and they will not make those kinds of very detrimental changes to the system that she herself proposed.

If I look at social services as a third area with respect to what the government has done, I have to focus on the 22% cut to social assistance this government made early on. A most interesting report was released just two days ago with respect to the link between income and how children do, income in the home and how they do later on. It says:

"The Canadian Council on Social Development compared family income with the new data from StatsCan continuing survey of children and youth and found that it was the key differential in 31 different outcomes and living conditions for children. Children aged four to 11 from poorer families were in worse health, were far more hyperactive, had poorer vocabulary and math scores, participated in fewer sports and had more friends who got into trouble than those from better-off homes," said David Ross, executive director of the research group.

"As family income goes up, the incidence of each of those risk factors goes down.

"For the first time in Canada, hard statistical evidence is now both abundant and compelling, yet family income has a major impact on children's wellbeing."

I thought it was appalling that one of the first acts of this government was to cut social assistance by 22%. Of the people who were receiving assistance, some 400,000 were children, who have no voice in our society, children who have no way to fight back, children who now find themselves or their parents, be they single moms or two-parent households, relying on food banks in order to make ends meet. This government went ahead and cut the poorest of the poor and has left the poorest of the poor in desperate situations. There will be repercussions for this whole society in terms of ongoing increased health costs, in terms of ongoing increased costs when children come into conflict with the law and increased costs when children drop out of school early on. All of those things are going to happen, because it is very clear that when the income in the household drops and people, especially kids, can't get what they need with respect to basic shelter, food and health care, that's the kind of ongoing social cost we're all going to have to pay for.

I deeply regret that the government has now seen fit as well to cut $37 from pregnant women who are on social assistance, who used to use that money to buy fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. I cannot believe we have stooped to a position in this province where we would cut $37 from people who are already the poorest. I was totally appalled by the Premier's comment that he wanted to do this to make sure those women didn't spend it on beer. That tells you a lot about the Premier and where this government is heading, it really does.

This government, in terms of social services, has done a number of other things: eliminated the children's services coordinating advisory groups that used to coordinate all the programs and services aimed at kids at risk; eliminated community and neighbourhood support services, which provided family support programs and community programs for children and the disabled; cut funding to children's mental health by 5%; cut all of the funding for the Little Beavers program, which was a recreation program geared to native kids; cut funding to the CAS by 5%. In that respect we had a study that was just released two days ago which made it very clear that despite the rhetoric of this current Minister of Community and Social Services, the situation for kids at risk in the care of children's aid societies is not improving.

The study said the following:

"Small children are being bounced from one foster home to group home to another as often as every few months; a computer system that will stop abused children from falling through administrative cracks promised a year ago is still not up and running; and the provincial government's promises last year to reform child welfare law have not materialized."

Despite all the rhetoric from this Minister of Community and Social Services about how they were reviewing and dealing with child welfare, kids who are at risk are now at risk more than ever before, and there are more of them.

With respect to cuts to family violence programs and cuts to programs dealing with women, this government cut funding to emergency shelters. A number of women take their kids and flee, and that funding has been cut. They cut all of the funding for counselling at second-stage housing for those women and their kids who were trying to get out of the shelter and back into a normal life. That transition stage, all the funding cut. All of the funding cut for crisis intervention phone lines. Never mind what the government did with respect to the family support plan and all the kids they put at risk there.

I think society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable, and the mark of a decent society is how we look after those who are most vulnerable. I have to say that I think in the last two years this government has done an appalling job with respect to that issue.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr O'Toole: It's my privilege to respond to the comments from the member for Sudbury East, and I did pay particular attention to a couple of items. Talk about listening - I know just in the last few months with the House - I know it has been in session longer than you sat for the whole last year, and we've been working in our ridings. In my riding I've had Minister Villeneuve, the Minister of Agriculture, Minister Tsubouchi, Mr Flaherty, Minister Jackson; indeed I've had the Premier in the riding listening to my constituents. These are constituents who are not, as you might suggest, handpicked.

You talk of a whole list of cuts that you presume to have been imposed on the people of Ontario. One of the most important cuts will be announced next week, which is a 30% tax cut, and the people are long overdue on that.

I challenge the member for Sudbury East with respect to spending in education. In fact, we're spending more in education than you spent in education. Look up your numbers. We have not cut from education. In fact, the cuts you made in education were called the social contract. Look into the details. In that particular contract alone, you kept $700 million, I think. Anyway, with respect to cuts in education, I believe we've put education spending back in the classroom.

Many of the initiatives, I might suggest, were started by your government: the Sweeney commission, which looked up the amount of administration in schools; the College of Teachers. Many of the initiatives improved the quality of education. In fact, read the Maclean's article from this month, April 8 I think it was. It ranked Ontario as the highest-spending jurisdiction in Canada.

With respect to children's services, we have a minister of children's services, the Honourable Margaret Marland, and I put to you that the biggest deterrent that you put on people is family income, which you commented on. You put people on welfare. Imagine the impact on future and hope in their lives. You did nothing for the people. Think about it.

Mr Caplan: I'd like to thank the member for Sudbury East for her excellent presentation. She focused many of her comments on the plight of children in this province, and the government's record is absolutely abysmal when it comes to children and the way it has dealt with our youngest and some of our most vulnerable citizens.

It's interesting to note, and I heard the last speaker talk about the government's commitment to education, which is astounding, since 60,000 kids in this province have been denied junior kindergarten since these guys took over. Now they're going to fund a study from Fraser Mustard to tell them about the importance of early childhood education, early childhood development. Absolutely ridiculous. The jury is in. The Royal Commission on Education is just one of the latest studies which has shown the importance of this. The time to act on it isn't after another study. That's just a delaying tactic.

The member also quite rightly highlighted some of the findings of the child advocate which just came out as well, and it shows that abused and neglected children in this province who go into the provincial systems for care get bounced around so many times that they are damaged, if you will, even more than when they entered that system.

If we have a minister responsible for children, I call upon her and I call upon this government to actually do something to help these kids. The response has been to cut their benefits, to reduce the level of services they're able to get while in provincial care. It's an absolutely appalling record. I think they would do well to implement the First Steps program that the Liberal Party and Dalton McGuinty have suggested.

1720

Mr Wildman: I listened intently to my friend from Sudbury East and her presentation, which centred on the plight of children under this government. I appreciated the research she has done into all the various cuts that have hurt children in this province as a result of the callous government we have.

I also appreciated the obvious concern and feeling she expressed as she spoke because of her commitment to the cause of children and equity in Ontario. I think it contrasted very well with the approach expressed by the member for Durham East in commenting on her remarks. In his remarks he essentially said that giving people a decent income when they are facing difficulty was harming them. That was what he said. Basically, he said that by giving people social assistance we hurt people, that by giving them a decent income we hurt people. Therefore, I guess conversely, by cutting their income we actually help them. How perverse.

This is a government that really believes - just think about this - that by cutting poor people they're helping them, and they also have to give money to the wealthy in a tax break. Basically, this is a government that believes that the poor have too much money and the wealthy don't have enough. Think about that. The poor have too much money and the wealthy don't have enough. You have to cut the poor's income and you have to give more income to the wealthy.

It's about time this government woke up to the fact that the wealthy are by definition rich and don't need more money and the poor by definition do need assistance.

Mr Hastings: It was interesting to listen to the member from Nickel Belt and how she seems to have amnesia about the fact that every action has a reaction. I'm wondering if in her well-documented research she has thought about the impact of huge deficits and of huge debt on future generations. It seems to be something that the members of the New Debtors Party always forget about. Like, you don't pay any interest; it's nothing to worry about.

How does that translate back to her concerns dealing with children? It's quite obvious that prior to the June 8, 1995, election you had hundreds of thousands of new people on the welfare system. It seemed to be a badge of honour that you were collecting welfare, which most people do not want to do; that that was somehow sort of an achievement in this province.

How does this impact on children in terms of being able to provide them services? If you didn't have any of these huge deficits, large debts, you'd have that money freed up for the very vital programs she talks about. I can see there is a necessity in that particular part of her remarks.

She dismisses us as having an appalling mismanagement record. We can apply the same words right back to her and her previous government from 1990 to 1995, when they racked up tons and tons of bills. If all the money that was spent had been spent more responsibly, we'd have fewer problems with children's poverty today. But I don't see that as the result of all the expenditures, not at all. It's a legacy of debt. It's a direct attack on the vulnerable.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury East has two minutes to respond.

Ms Martel: Thank you to the members for Oriole and Algoma for their comments.

Let me say to the member for Durham East, who says there hasn't been a cut to education, that if you take the lead from his Treasurer and you add up all the capital budget for education and you throw in the teachers' pension plan as well, along with the operating budget for education, you probably will have more money for education. Interestingly enough, that's not the way the boards calculate how much money they're going to get and that's not the way it was ever calculated before in this province either. The only reason this government can stand in its place and claim that more money is being spent is if you throw in the capital on to the operating budget and the teachers' pension plan. But no one is very much fooled by that sleight-of-hand.

The member also talked about welfare in terms of - well, I don't even know what he said about welfare, honest to goodness, it was so ridiculous. I guess the member is saying he's quite proud to be a member of the government, that of the people that got cut, of the 400,000 kids that got cut, that was okay. It's okay that the government cut 22% from welfare and that you've now got in Metro one in four kids living in poverty. That's all right, that's a record he's proud of. Well, that's a record he will have to defend later on.

With respect to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who talked about deficits, that if we didn't have large deficits we would have more money to spend on children, this is the government that is going to take and is taking $5 billion out of our health care system, out of our education system, out of our communities and out of our spending for kids and giving it back in the form of a phoney tax scheme, giving those people who have the most in the province even more.

Speaking of deficits, the deficit we are inheriting because we are losing a whole generation of kids due to your cuts to children is a social deficit we will live with for a long, long time and one that is shameful.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? I recognize the member for Kitchener.

Mr Michael Brown: Oh, I was hoping you'd speak.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Mr Brown, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, said he was hoping I would speak. I appreciate that.

As a member of this government, the one particular aspect of the throne speech that I would like to touch on is the provincial economy. As you well remember, when we assumed the reins of government, the government faced what seemed to be the insurmountable task of bringing what had been for five previous years uncontrolled, upward-spiralling provincial spending under some control. This spending had resulted in a debt of $100 billion, a provincial debt of $100 billion. That produced interest to the tune of $9 billion a year, roughly 17% of the total provincial budget. Some 17% of the entire provincial budgeted revenues were going to pay interest on the debt, interest rates that were escalating at a rate of $750 million a month, or $173 million a week, $24 million a day, or over $1 million an hour.

Mr Michael Brown: What is it today?

Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Brown, I'm going to be pleased to answer. Just let me get to that.

What makes these figures even more grotesque is the fact that the magnitude of the interest to service the debt is more than we can afford to spend on primary school education, is more than we can afford to spend on universities and colleges and is 35% more than we can afford to spend on hospitals.

Added to this overall financial mismanagement problem was the fact that the federal Liberal government raided Ontario taxpayers by $2.1 billion in educational and social transfer payments, without so much as a murmur of protest from their provincial cousins, the Ontario Liberal Party. The Ontario Liberals apparently believe it is all right for their federal cousins to raid Ontario taxpayers. In their minds, they view the federal Liberal raid on transfer payments as just another tax increase for Ontarians, something with which the provincial Liberals are very comfortable.

1730

It is hard to fathom how the two former governments - one being Liberal; the other being NDP - could increase taxes 65 times in 10 years and still end up with a provincial debt load of $100 billion. Imagine, 65 tax increases and a burgeoning debt to $100 billion. That's an example of total, incompetent mismanagement. There is a direct relationship between high government debt, high taxes and job creation. The twin towers of high government debt and high taxes destroy private sector initiative; they destroy job creation initiatives on the part of the private sector.

Since assuming the reins of government, the Mike Harris team, under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, has reduced taxes 30 times. The opposition parties continue to strum the same old song that they sang during the election campaign. "Tax cuts are bad for the economy," they say.

Mr Michael Brown: How much in hours a day?

Mr Wettlaufer: What's that, Mr Brown?

Mr Michael Brown: How much an hour?

Mr Wettlaufer: We'll get to that. This debate is no longer one of philosophic economic policy differences. This debate can now be viewed in terms of the actual impact of allowing taxpayers to keep some of their hard-earned money. Let's take a look at the financial and economic impact of this government's policies revolving around tax reductions.

Every day, you can pick up the newspaper and find something in the newspaper that talks about what has happened in Ontario. "Ontario Leads Parade of Jobs." Here's an editorial from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record dated April 25: "There simply had to be changes in this province and the Tories were right to make most of them." There is no way this could be done pain-free. Partly as a result, Ontario has now regained its stature as Canada's economic powerhouse. More people are working, fewer are unemployed or on welfare.

The previous speaker, the member from Sudbury, talked about poverty. Poverty is the result of people being on welfare, the result of people being unemployed. That occurred during the previous government's reign of terror; that occurred during the previous government's reign of mismanagement.

Then we have another newspaper column, Canadian Press, "Industry Capacity Highest Since `80s," the highest since the 1980s. The International Monetary Fund forecasts, "Canada Will Lead in Economic Growth," with 3.2% growth in GDP forecast for 1998. Where is the bulk of that growth? It's in Ontario, as a result of our fiscal policies.

Here, in another column by the Canadian Press, "The Canadian economy, which had a great year with growth of almost 4% in 1997, will continue to expand at a good clip of about 3% both this year and next....

"That's largely the result of strong growth in Ontario and Quebec." Ontario, the leader of the country's economy.

There have been 341,000 net new private sector jobs created in the province of Ontario as a result of our economic policies since September 1995; 261,000 of those jobs were created in the private sector since February 1997, only 15 months. What is just as exciting about those figures is the projected continued increase in the number of new jobs which will be created over the next 24 months. We in Ontario have the fastest job creation in all of Canada. More Ontarians are working than at any other time in this province's history.

Where are these jobs being created? They are being created in all economic sectors. Small, medium and large-sized companies are all flourishing in Ontario. Again, the largest number of jobs is being created in the small business sector. Some 85% of all jobs created in the province are being created in the small business sector. As a government, we can take great comfort in this fact. The growth in small business means that the economic base of the province is diverse. It ensures increased stability should the overall North American economy slow its pace at all.

The growth in the small business sector means the government is being successful in allowing the creative, entrepreneurial spirit to develop and thrive. Small businesses are most often created when an individual decides to invest his or her own time and wealth in a venture which he or she conceives. Today, as a result of our policies, thousands of these small businesses are being created. Many of these small, one-person businesses will expand into two-person, three-person and four-person businesses.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): They'll learn.

Mr Wettlaufer: "They'll learn," my colleague from Etobicoke-Humber adds. That's correct. This is the natural process of job growth in the small business sector.

When the NDP was in power there was another process. Small businesses were being developed then too, but that was as a result of large businesses becoming small through their economic policies.

Today small businesses are flourishing, and the flourishing nature of the small business sector in the province can be considered an era of entrepreneurial renaissance. It is an era in which anyone in the province with any foresight and determination to pursue their dreams of going into business can have the opportunity to do so. This is an era in which there has been a surge in the diversity of the types of new companies being established. Consequently there is a parallel surge in the new jobs being created. Our province can look forward to a strong economic base for the foreseeable future.

In my own Waterloo region the evidence of economic prosperity is there for anyone to see. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Larger companies, such as Babcock and Wilcox in the city of Cambridge, recently announced the signing of an international multimillion-dollar deal which ensures employment for years to come. The Toyota plant, also in Cambridge, is undergoing a major expansion and will be a major employer for years to come.

While these employers are in Cambridge, it has a dramatic effect on my riding of Kitchener, because Kitchener and Cambridge adjoin each other. Medium-sized companies in Kitchener such as Sutherland and Schultz, Kuntz Electroplating, ATS - Automated Tooling Systems that is - S-S Technologies, and Waterloo companies such as Mortice-Kerns and Research in Motion are successfully competing on a provincial, national and international level, and weekly there are new jobs being created, new businesses being created.

This is indeed a good time to be living in Ontario. It's a good time to be a member of this government. We have shown the initiative and leadership necessary to create a strong economic base, to turn the province's economic fortunes around. Today consumer confidence is the highest it has been in 10 years. Over the first 11 months of 1997, housing starts rose by 27% in Ontario. Ontario home resales also rose, by 7.7%. Ontario's export industries are growing, with international exports having increased by 6.7%. In nine months, year over year, 1996-97, more jobs in the export industries, more jobs in the domestic industries. Over the first nine months of 1997, Ontario manufacturing shipments rose 6.9% over 1996. That means manufacturers are increasing their workforces, creating more jobs.

1740

You know what I find particularly satisfying? Contrary to what critics would believe, the 30 tax reductions introduced by this government have resulted in a direct increase in revenues for this government. The revenue outlook for budget year 1997-98 is $50.3 billion, which is $1.7 billion above the original estimates. I find that really ironic because in the years of high taxes governments were having trouble with revenues. Why is that?

It's pretty easy to see when we look at the news clippings, and we see here in a column in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Friday, March 6, 1998, "High Taxes Mean Big Business for the Underground Economy." "`High taxes create tax cheats,'" it says here.

People are more willing to pay taxes; also, people have jobs in which they pay taxes. Incomes have been rising. They pay more taxes. Low taxes are beneficial for everyone.

Not only is this government on target to eliminate its deficit by the year 2000, the government is actually ahead of schedule. The 1997-98 deficit, at $5.6 billion, is down $988 million from the budget plan, nearly $1 billion.

The rapid growth in the number of new private sector jobs being created in all private sectors, our being ahead of schedule in our deficit targets, and our provincial revenues higher than projected are irrefutable proof that this government has established the correct economic direction for the province of Ontario. The throne speech clearly spells out the overall direction this government will maintain, and Ontarians in all parts of the province can continue to look to the future with optimism.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Michael Brown: I'm always interested in the comments of the member for Kitchener. I'm afraid he might even believe his own rhetoric.

What I really wanted to ask right off the top was, how much does it cost to borrow by the hour today? It is substantially higher than it was three years ago because you have run record deficits. The period from 1990 to 1995 was the only period where deficits were higher than the ones you're running. I'm always quite entertained by that thought.

Anyway, that's not what I wanted to speak about. I wanted to speak about what this government is really all about. What the government is really all about is illustrated by this. Lord Gladstone once said you can judge a society by the manner in which it looks after its dead.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: And the results.

Mr Michael Brown: You didn't really mean that.

I would say to you, you can judge your government by the way it looks after its dead. It was just brought to my attention that the government will not pay any longer to bury homeless people in the province of Ontario, it will not pay to bury an indigent who wasn't on welfare. I cannot think of a smaller government than that.

I would quote Alex Munter. "If you die on welfare, the province will cover part of the bill. But if you're elderly or working poor, it's just too bad. It's distasteful, ruthless and really disappointing that even in death people can't have some dignity," said the Ottawa regional councillor. He called the plan "small-minded meanness," and that is your legacy.

Mr Wildman: I listened carefully to my friend from Kitchener-Wilmot and his remarks about the economy, his glowing description of the situation in Ontario today. He's on the one hand taking credit as a government for what he calls "the booming economy," but on the other hand he seems to be saying that government doesn't really have a role, that it is really what he described as the entrepreneurial spirit that creates jobs. If he says it really is the small business sector and the entrepreneurial spirit that creates jobs on the one hand, how is it on the other he can take credit as a government?

On the other hand, I do believe that in some areas of the province we lag seriously behind. I say this very sincerely. There are parts of the province where the market does not work well for the residents. For instance, I come from a part of the province in the north where we are seeing an out-migration of population. We were at one time about one million people in northern Ontario; we're now at about 800,000. The average age is increasing. Twenty-five years ago in Sault Ste Marie the average age was 26; it is now 38.

The fact is, young people are leaving because they do not have opportunities. This is something that has been ongoing. I'm not saying it's just during this government's time. It's been ongoing for 20 years. If we leave it to the market, that situation will continue. Governments must intervene at times to counter the market.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to commend the member for Kitchener for an outstanding speech where he outlined so many positive aspects of what this government is all about. He talked about the number of jobs we've created in this province since June 1995, some 325,000 jobs, and that's in all ridings across the province.

The member for Kitchener also spoke about the 30 tax cuts this government has brought in. We all anxiously await that budget on Tuesday, when I'm sure there will be some more tax cuts for the people of Ontario. That's 30 tax cuts to date. In the 10 years ending 1995, the previous Liberal and NDP governments, as the member for Kitchener so rightly pointed out, had 65 tax hikes. If you look at the five years from 1990 to 1995, when the NDP was in office, their 32 tax hikes actually generated a loss of 10,000 jobs in this province. What we've seen is that 30 tax cuts have equalled so far, to date, 325,000 jobs in the province of Ontario.

The member for Kitchener also talked about the federal government and the fact that they have cut $2.1 billion in transfer payments to the province of Ontario. They seem to be getting off scot-free on that. But despite that $2.1-billion reduction, we have increased health care spending in this province. The editorial in the Toronto Sun today is talking about our $1.2-billion investment in long-term care. It says: "No Ontario government in the past decade has been willing to come to grips with the pressing need for more long-term care with our aging population. Not one new publicly funded bed has been provided since 1988."

That's over 10 years ago. This government is taking action on health care, tax cuts, and we're seeing the benefits of that today in Ontario.

1750

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I listened with some care to the member's speech and, as is his wont, it was quite lively and entertaining. It is true, and nowhere is it more true than Waterloo county, that there is an evident prosperity. I was in Kitchener the other day; I was in Listowel. That part of southwestern Ontario is pulsing with prosperity.

I remember a time not long ago when it was not the case. I hope it never rains; I hope the prosperity is endless. I can remember a time in Kitchener city when the news was not very good.

I was driving back from the county last night from my home in Pembroke and I was listening to CBC Ideas talking about Davos. They were playing back some tapes from Davos 1992, the Japanese miracle, and how the theologians were all of one mind, that this was a sun that would never set.

Today, one of the reasons Ontario is doing better than British Columbia is that British Columbia's economy is in the tank, to a significant extent because of what's happening in southeast Asia.

Yes, it is prosperous, and no one is more happy than I, but prosperity is not everywhere the same. I was in some of the small towns in Renfrew county in the last few weeks and, let me tell you, Killaloe and Barry's Bay and Eganville, the small business sector in those communities and in Glengarry county, are doing better but not nearly as well as Waterloo and as London and as North York.

You know all the comments that have been made about taxes. There's no doubt that governments raised taxes in earlier days, but I was here between 1981 and 1985 and I watched Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. I watched them raise taxes by the dozen. They raised income taxes; they raised sales taxes. They initiated taxes on things like women's hygiene products. They bought a three-quarter-of-a-billion-dollar interest in an oil company. They bought an executive jet.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, we didn't.

Mr Conway: Oh, yes, there are sins, but we'd better be ecumenical in recognizing the responsibility for those -

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Kitchener. He has two minutes to respond.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like a little bit of order here, please.

Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Speaker, I can't even hear myself think. I don't know how you can hear me.

The responses from the members of the other party are so indicative of their total lack of understanding of financial management. It indicates why we got into the problem in the first place.

The member for Algoma-Manitoulin wants to know how much we were borrowing by the hour. The interest payments by the hour now are about $250 million less than they were when the last government was there.

Mr Michael Brown: An hour?

Mr Wettlaufer: Sorry, $250,000 an hour. That is simply a reflection of the fact that governments in Ontario now are showing that we can manage things properly. We don't have to borrow foreign dollars and therefore the interest rates have gone down, not just here but in the rest of the country. The impact of this province's borrowing amounts to a quarter to half a point on the interest rate.

The member for Algoma says the government doesn't create jobs, yet we create the environment for jobs. That's right. We create the environment for jobs. We don't need to create the jobs if we create the environment.

Here is something that has been furnished to me. The Niagara area, which had the highest unemployment rate in the country before we got elected, now has one of the lowest unemployment rates - 7.2%, which is lower than even the provincial average. Here we have a projection of the jobs required in the Niagara area in the next couple of years: a total of 53,000 new jobs in an area with a population of 400,000. Obviously they are going to have to have massive immigration into the area.

The Acting Speaker: It being almost 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 tonight.

The House adjourned at 1757.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

April 30, 1998

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (DRIVERS' LICENCES OF CERTAIN SCHOOL PUPILS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PERMIS DE CONDUIRE DE CERTAINS ÉLÈVES)

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (DRIVERS' LICENCES OF CERTAIN SCHOOL PUPILS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PERMIS DE CONDUIRE DE CERTAINS ÉLÈVES)

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

ISRAELI INDEPENDENCE COMMEMORATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

HOME CARE

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

HOME CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WILD TURKEY HUNT

EMERGENCY SERVICES

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

WORKFARE

HOMELESSNESS

LAND USE PLANNING

TRUCKING SAFETY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VETERANS' MEMORIAL PARKWAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROMENADE COMMÉMORATIVE DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHARITABLE GAMING

PROPERTY TAXATION

ICE STORM

EDUCATION FUNDING

DENTAL CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL GAS SUPPLIERS

HAMILTON POLICE CHIEF

WAYNE MIDDAUGH

PETITIONS

DISPONIBILITÉ D'UNE ÉCOLE

EDUCATION REFORM

SCHOOL FACILITIES

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CURRICULUM

EDUCATION REFORM

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

SCHOOL SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE