Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

My remarks today are for the Premier and for the Minister of Health. I want to speak again about a subject that has been on the lips of many of us in this Legislature in the last week or so, and that is the community care access centres and the plight that this government has put them in.

There's a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with this in that the Premier will get up and say, "Well, we haven't reduced the budgets of the CCACs one cent." That's right, their budgets are the same as last year, but we know that many of the CCACs across this province had to run deficits in order to provide minimum service to our frail, our elderly and our sick. In fact, if those budgets are frozen this year and not considered to be increased because of the increased need, there will be a $175-million shortfall. We can't tolerate that. People -- frail, elderly -- are being released earlier and earlier, sicker and sicker from hospitals, and they need this community care. The need is out there. This is not just a shoddy ploy; this is serious business. Our citizens, our frail and our elderly, need the assistance of community care access centres, and I implore the government to provide them with that funding.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I rise in the House today to talk about a situation that came about in the city of London over the past weekend. The issue is a serious one and ought not to be taken lightly.

On Saturday afternoon, June 16, there were two serious accidents and numerous other medical emergencies that overwhelmed our ambulance system. Other ambulances which were in London from Strathroy, St Thomas and Lambton county doing patient transfers accommodated the need for more ambulances. The ambulance system in this region is set up to respond and dispatch vehicles from neighbouring communities for unforeseen medical emergencies that may overwhelm the system. In this case, the emergency plan worked and it worked well, as more ambulances were dispatched from the surrounding communities.

I have been speaking to paramedics and ambulance attendants from Thames Valley Emergency Medical Services for some time, and they have suggested that the problem lies with patient transfers. The ambulances used for patient transfers cause an artificial decrease in the number of ambulances available for medical emergencies. I want to bring this situation to the members of this House so that we can focus our attention on this problem. Patient transfers are important, but they are likely a constant, and those patient transfers take away from ambulance time in dealing with real emergencies.

I urge the Minister of Health and the county of Middlesex to work out this arrangement and have new resources for the city of London for ambulance services.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It seems that the Mike Harris government has very little regard for the people who built the foundation of the province. Mike Harris says seniors should "thank God" they live in Ontario. Should they thank God because they are in a province that has the dubious distinction of having nursing homes where residents receive the least nursing, bathing and general care among those areas studied from around the world? Is that what Mike Harris was talking about when he said they should thank God because they have access to the best services anywhere in the world?

The Harris government's latest threat to put a means test on the drug benefit program for seniors is now another example of the Harris government's insensitivity toward the most vulnerable in our society. Senior citizens paid into the health care system and they deserve to collect on it.

The crisis the government has created in home care is also something they should be deeply ashamed of. Essentially, they are forcing seniors out of their homes and into institutions because there isn't sufficient home care available. At the same time, they are giving their corporate friends massive tax breaks. This is a bitter pill for seniors to swallow.

In my constituency office I hear from seniors day by day about the health care system. They have watched as emergency rooms overflow and hospitals close their doors, and now they have to sit by and watch the government threaten their drug plan.

Ontario's seniors deserve our gratitude for all they have done for us. They have fought in the wars, they have defended our freedom, they have witnessed history, and they continue to pass on their knowledge and wisdom. They almost single-handedly power the volunteer sector of our society and work tirelessly to make things better for us and those around the world. They deserve better than they are getting from this government.

AUREL BISSON

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr Speaker, you know that the last week or so I haven't been here due to the passing of my father. I want to acknowledge to the members in the House how touching it was -- the comments, the letters, the phone calls, the faxes, the e-mails from all members of this assembly, and people across the communities.

I didn't think I was going to do this, but you would know my dad was a bit of an institution around the Legislature. He often was here in the galleries watching the House. He loved this place probably more than most people realized. He understood what our role here is: to serve not only our parties but also our constituents and our constituencies. He sat in those bleachers, as he called them, on both sides, on the government side from 1990 to 1995 and from 1995 to lately on the opposition side, watching what we did, always with a good sense of humour.

A lot of the members of the assembly knew my dad because they would go over to talk to him from all sides of the House. It's ironic that he died in a week that he was supposed to be here. We were supposed to fly together on the Monday, but unfortunately, because of weather and fog that day, ended up having to take a commercial flight. It cleared up the next day. He went out fishing, cranked on the motor probably harder than he should have, and died of a heart attack while fishing.

I want to just acknowledge all the members of the assembly, the legislative staff, the caucus staff, people across the constituencies and across northern Ontario who called our family, came to visit, did everything they could in support. On behalf of myself, my mother, my brother and my sister, I really want to thank you for what you have done. It's been quite touching.

To dad, God, I'm going to miss you. Thanks, dad.

ALLAN LAWRENCE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize an outstanding individual from Cobourg, the Honourable Allan Lawrence.

On June 6, Mr Lawrence received recognition from the legal profession for his extraordinary contributions. He was one of five recipients of the law society medal given by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Mr Lawrence has had a long legal and political career, which includes a law practice with a Toronto firm for some 15 years and recent retirement as a senior mediator and arbitrator with Arbitration Associates, a firm he founded in 1988.

Mr Lawrence has also served on many committees during his career, such as vice-chairman of the ADR committee and membership on the legal aid, research and planning, legal education and equity committees. Currently he is the vice-chairman of the paralegal task force and a member of the national WTO committee for the law society.

His political career is also extremely impressive. A member of Parliament from 1972 to 1988, he was the Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the Joe Clark administration and Canadian chairman of the Canada-US Permanent Joint Board on Defence from 1984 to 1989.

With personal regards, I congratulate the Honourable Allan Lawrence for his achievements and for receiving the law society medal.

1340

GAY PRIDE WEEK

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I want to rise today and remind all members that this is the official kick-off of Gay Pride Week here in the city of Toronto. Earlier today I had the opportunity to join hundreds of members of Toronto's gay community and Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman, former mayor Barbara Hall and other distinguished guests in the raising of the pride flag, the rainbow flag, which is flying over city hall as we speak.

The theme of Gay Pride Week this year is love. It is, I think, a fitting theme. A community like ours is broad and diverse and has gained many achievements in our province, and yet there is one thing that we lack, and that is the right to marry. Many gays and lesbians will be pushing for this, because it is the ultimate symbol of love between two loving adults. That's what we'll be pushing for.

But it isn't just Toronto that celebrates pride this week. All across the province of Ontario, Ontario-wide pride is occurring. In communities like Chatham and Sarnia, Ottawa, Kingston, Halton, Hamilton, London, in York region, in Sudbury and in Windsor gays and lesbians and their friends and supporters will be joining together in an embrace and celebration of cultural and sexual orientation diversity.

I invite all members who have not experienced 750,000 people coming together in the city of Toronto, with an economic impact of more than $40 million, to join with me this Sunday at 2 o'clock in a parade, an experience that I guarantee them they will enjoy and remember forever.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Recently a volunteer summit was held in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant as part of the International Year of the Volunteer. This summit was designed to recognize outstanding commitments made in our communities, as well as to attract new volunteers. I am proud to say that this summit was very well attended. In Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant we have many dedicated individuals who give so selflessly of their time and their efforts.

Today, I'd like to highlight the achievements of Ohsweken resident Glenda Porter. On April 26, Glenda was presented with one of 20 outstanding achievement awards for volunteerism in Ontario for her dedication to the Six Nations Skating Club.

Glenda helped to develop the Six Nations Skating Club in 1976. Over the past 26 years, she has been president for 14 years, she has been carnival director, treasurer, test chairman and membership director. One year, Glenda sewed close to 60 carnival costumes by herself to ensure every single skater would be wearing something unique.

Aside from all the meetings she has had to attend for the skating club, Glenda has found time to join a host of other clubs and organizations within her community.

It is people like Glenda who make our communities and the province of Ontario a richer place to live, raise a family and work. I congratulate Glenda and I commend her on her many years of hard and often unnoticed work.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Today I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health an example of the cuts to our health care system that is similar to many others across the province.

Jean Scott, an 87-year-old lady from Lancaster, previously had knee surgery. The pain has reoccurred, and she is hardly able to walk. She now requires further surgery, and her physician has referred her to a specialist.

Guess what? The specialist is unable to see her for six months. This story gets even worse. The waiting period for surgery is another 12 months. This is ridiculous. As my leader, Dalton McGuinty, has said many times, people cannot wait months or years for medical treatment when they are ill and suffering.

Since 1999 the federal government has transferred more than $2 billion for health care in Ontario. Where is that money? People have seen serious cuts to health care services, doctor shortages, clinic closures, cancer care cuts, MRIs not available, and the list goes on. Your government must ensure that health care services are available. Minister, Mrs Scott needs this operation and she needs it now, not 18 months from now.

I ask the minister today: guarantee to the people of Ontario that you will reinstate funding to our health care system to help people like Mrs Scott and not divert money from our health care system to pay tax credits.

ECOPARK

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It is an honour to rise today to pay tribute to those dedicated to EcoPark in the city of Vaughan in my riding of Thornhill. EcoPark, which runs along the West Don River, was ignored by almost everyone nine years ago. That was when two local environmentalists, Kevin McLaughlin and Michael White, launched a bid to revitalize it.

Since then, students from seven schools planted 10,000 trees and shrubs. Nearby companies helped create a marsh. EcoPark has become one of the largest restoration projects in the entire Don watershed.

It is far more than just a trail and a few trees. It provides a car-free pass for cycling to work, it provides a nice lunching spot and it provides an area for people to just take a nice walk and enjoy nature.

At least one local environmentalist sees great things for the park. He sees it as one day being an important part of an interregional trail system. EcoPark will be a gateway to the Oak Ridges moraine, and from there to other trail systems. It will allow people to walk south from Concord to Toronto and Lake Ontario. EcoPark will be a destination itself, a place to enjoy nature, relax and birdwatch.

It is my pleasure today to acknowledge all of those dedicated to our environment and to our community who have worked to make EcoPark a reality. With vision and hard work, nothing is impossible.

VISITOR

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to inform the House and welcome my daughter, Joanna Tsanis, who's in the members' gallery today from grade 4, Rousseau school, Hamilton.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONRAD GREBEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ACT, 2001

Mr Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Conrad Grebel University College.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Mr Speaker, as you well know, the standing orders preclude that ministers of the crown introduce private bills. On behalf of the member for Kitchener-Waterloo, I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act respecting Conrad Grebel University College, and that it be now be read for the first time.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

MASTER'S COLLEGE AND SEMINARY ACT, 2001

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting Master's College and Seminary (formerly Eastern Pentecostal Bible College).

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): This is a motion dealing with evening sittings. I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, June 18, Tuesday, June 19, and Wednesday, June 20, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the west gallery today we have the very original and new group from Brantford who call themselves the Breakfast Club, comprised of Al Cooper, an award-winning stylist; Mike Swanson, an international award-winning illustrator; John Szasz, an award-winning designer, developer and builder; Brian Heap, a long-time community volunteer; and Russ Faber, our retired postmaster of Brantford.

They've joined us today to watch the workings of democracy.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our guests.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'll be asking for unanimous consent for two separate motions. Just to be clear what we're talking about here, it's been worked out among the House leaders to swap private members' business this Thursday among three members here in the House. I will obviously need unanimous consent for that motion and to waive the notice for one of the members.

I'll start by seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), that the following changes be made to the ballot lists for private members' public business:

Mr Kwinter and Mr Lalonde exchange places in order of precedence, such that Mr Kwinter assumes ballot item number 51 and Mr Lalonde assumes ballot item number 28; and

Mr Lalonde and Mr Guzzo exchange places in order of precedence, such that Mr Lalonde assumes ballot item number 15 and Mr Guzzo assumes ballot item number 28.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding the notice requirements of one of those bills.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move, re standing order 96(g) with respect to ballot item number 28, that the usual notice be waived.

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

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, first you accused hospital board members of intellectual dishonesty in trying to tell you what would happen if you continue to force cuts on hospital budgets. Then you accused them of putting forward budgets that contained everything but the kitchen sink. You weren't prepared to believe hospitals, so they went out and bought not one but two independent studies. Those studies make it absolutely clear that hospitals are underfunded by some $700 million. Those studies also said clearly that if hospitals don't get the $700 million, there will be more beds closed, longer waits for surgery, more ambulances waiting in driveways to deliver their patients, more people being sent home sick because there is no room for them in hospital.

In last month's budget, you cut hospital funds instead of increasing them. Now you say you're prepared to find them some more money. I ask you today, how much are you prepared to put into hospital budgets, and when will you tell hospitals what their budgets will actually be?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member mentions a study that was commissioned by the hospital association. A simple question was asked, and that question was, "If the hospital budgets were diminished by 8.3%, what would be the impact on the hospitals?" The impacts are as the honourable member has listed. I can tell the honourable member and this House that we have absolutely no intention of decreasing hospital budgets by 8.3%. We have absolutely no intention of decreasing hospital budgets. So the premise of the report, fortunately for this province, for the patients of this province and for the hospitals of this province is incorrect.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, in last month's budget you said you were going to cut hospital budgets by $100 million, not increase them. Now you say you're going to increase them. They need to know now what their budgets are going to be. The crisis is now.

Last week, a man came into Queensway walk-in centre -- it used to be a hospital, now it's a walk-in centre; you closed it as a hospital -- with a heart attack. He was initially treated there but had to be transferred to a hospital where his heart attack could be cared for. He was being transferred to a hospital, Markham-Stouffville hospital, an hour and a half away because there was not a single bed in any Toronto hospital for that critically ill patient.

If the hospitals don't get the $700 million they need, there will be 2,000 more acute care beds closed on top of the 8,000 beds you've already closed. There will be 73,000 fewer hospital admissions. I suggest to you we can't wait till the next inquest to get the hospital funding.

If you are planning to find more money for hospitals, you should be able to tell them now, today, what their funding will be. Will you tell hospitals immediately what the least they will get is so some of those layoffs and bed closures can be prevented?

Hon Mr Clement: I find myself in a problematic situation. You've only given me a minute to respond, and there are at least five minutes' worth of inaccuracies in the question, but I will endeavour to say this to comfort the people of Ontario who might be alarmed by the alarmist comments of the member opposite.

We have no intention of giving hospitals less money -- never had; never will. Indeed, we have increased hospital funding -- operating funding -- by over 25% since the 1998-99 fiscal year. So this is a level of support that's unprecedented in Ontario.

The fundamental premise of the question is wrong. The predictions she has for the system are wrong. This ministry, this government, stands on the side of better patient care, more accountable patient care and better outcomes. Maybe the honourable member can be on that side as well, but she hasn't been so far.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps the minister is now putting me into the same category that he's put hospital board members, and two independent consulting firms who did independent studies suggesting that we're all guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps he'll say it is simply inaccurate that if hospitals don't get the $700 million, they're going to have to lay off some 6,000 nurses and that that would cost this government $200 million in severance costs. Perhaps he thinks it's common sense to put $200 million into severing 6,000 nurses rather than deal with the reality of hospital budgets.

Minister, instead of talking about inaccuracies, let's talk about promises made and whether they're going to be kept. Last week you made promises to hospitals. You promised them that you were going to give them some more money, and you haven't told them how much or when it's coming. You also promised them that you were going to exempt them from legislation that would require hospitals to have balanced budgets.

Minister, you are right back to the old games. You're going to force the hospitals to cut as far as they can cut, and then, at the end of the year, you'll come in and provide some money to cover the gap and say you've increased the budget.

If you're not planning to let hospitals run deficits because you're not giving them the funding they need, if that's not what you're planning, then tell us exactly what you've promised to hospitals.

Hon Mr Clement: Again I have to correct the record. The fact of the matter is, first of all, we are reviewing the operating plans to hospitals. She knows this happens every year. We will not finish the review until we are satisfied that patient care is maximized and accountability is maximized.

Here's what one leader has said in the past on these issues. The leader has said, and this is a quote from CBC radio news: "People told him over the summer that money isn't the answer. He says they know the health care system needs to be fundamentally reformed if the problems are going to be fixed."

That leader is Dalton McGuinty. That's what Dalton McGuinty said on September 13, 2000.

I just ask the question, what has changed? On this side of the House we're for accountability, we're for better patient care and we're for better results. I thought they were on the same side. Evidently they're not.

HOME CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. You've already created an absolute mess in dealing with our hospitals. You are getting exactly the opposite of what you say you expect out of the system, and it's due to your own mismanagement of this system. What you have caused in hospital chaos has now leapt over into the home care field, and now we have an absolute mess in home care. You have gone to the community care access centres and you've said, "You're going to be flatlined. You're not getting any more money to deal with very sick people that the hospitals are throwing into the home care system." You knew, it was predictable, that home care cases would increase because you're throwing them out of the hospitals.

I want to talk to you about those who are facing long waiting lists and reduced home care services as a result of your funding. I want to talk to you about Mr Dwyer in Cambridge, who came home last week after undergoing brain tumour surgery. He's got to wait nine months for help, and his wife, Kay, said, "We're looking after him the best we can, but we're not trained to do this."

Minister, what do you have to say to Kay and her husband?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would say to any citizen in Ontario that we are committed to a home care system that does prioritize the things they care about, particularly nursing care. I would say to the honourable member and to people in Ontario that we have been there for home care services. We've increased CCAC funding, home care funding, by 72%, including an extra $64 million this year, as a result of a $550-million multi-year commitment for increased home care services. That's what I would say to any persons who have concerns as a result of alarmist views or the opposition's interpretation of facts that something else is happening, because it isn't happening the way the honourable member describes it.

We are in fact having the reinvestments that are necessary, and that is in the home care sector as well.

1410

Mrs Pupatello: Finally, the community care access centres are telling exactly what is happening to the people in Ontario thanks to your funding, Minister. Don't talk to me about being alarmist. Don't suggest that we are exaggerating, because we are getting the facts from the front lines, from people who care for patients. Tell these patients who are doing without care about the wonderful job you've done in home care.

I want to talk to you about what the Premier said last week. He said, "Thank God our seniors live in Ontario." What kind of foolish statement was that to make?

I want to tell you about Mrs Muldoon. She's 88 years old, a paraplegic with a catheter. She's bedridden and suffers from severe bed sores and possible dementia. Her son has been providing around-the-clock care. He used to get 14 hours of respite care. Thanks to your cuts, that respite care is now reduced to four hours. Can you please tell the Muldoons why they should thank God they live in Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: I think we're all proud to be living in Ontario. That's why we live here and we work here to raise our families. I would not exclude seniors from that category, as the honourable member is seeking to do.

The facts are clear. When one looks at services for seniors in home care, long-term-care services, in comparison with other provinces, we are second to none, and that's 100% provincial dollars. Not a dime, not a nickel, not a pfennig of federal money goes into these programs, and that is fact. The fact is, this is 100% provincial money. When you compare it to other provincial jurisdictions, we are the leaders of the pack in terms of investing for our seniors' safety and comfort in the future. That is something of which, on this side of the House, we are quite proud.

Mrs Pupatello: If you're so busy investing -- you just come up and make up any number at all and say, "That's what we're giving to home care." You just make up anything at all and think we're going to believe you.

Minister, the reality is that these individuals in their homes are getting less service today than they used to, and some of these seniors need this money to stay in their homes. That was the whole point of home care in the first place. Home care is about prevention and it's about staying in their own homes. You take away the people's in-home supports, and guess where they're going to end up. They're going to end up back in hospital. As my colleague mentioned, you're cutting the hospital budgets, so what are these people to do? They're not getting the service they need at home. They go back to the hospital. You're cutting the money to hospitals. Where do you think the people are going to go?

Minister, you have a responsibility. Don't talk about these macro numbers. You have got to get back and manage this system. These individuals requiring home care need service to stay in their homes, and under your government, under your watch, these services are being cut.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member is sinking very close to the person who said, "Don't confuse the issue with facts."

If the honourable member doesn't like the facts and figures, I can talk about local cases. Here are two local cases. Let's take Oxford, for example, where in the Oxford Sentinel Review the chair of the CCAC said, "At this point there is no concern about decreasing services," given the budget numbers they have to work with this year. But I don't leave it at that. Here's another case: in York region -- I don't know why that region particularly came to mind, but it did -- here's a comment from The Liberal, which is a publication in York region. The Liberal says, "Since 1994, funding in York has risen 193%.... It's time for the centres to examine the efficiency of their operations." I finally found a Liberal I can agree with.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education and it concerns her tax credit for private schools. Minister, New Democrats want to know why you are going to use public money to fund discrimination.

In a survey of Ontario private schools conducted over the last two weeks, 60 private schools across Ontario were asked, "What percentage of your students are disabled?" The answer is shocking: 76% do not have one disabled student. Minister, how can you use public money to fund such a pattern of discrimination?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): We are not using public money to discriminate in any way, shape or form in any sector. As the honourable member knows, that would be against the law.

Mr Hampton: As the minister knows, private schools are exempt from the Ontario Human Rights Code. We settled that with the Premier a few weeks ago.

What is more disturbing, when you ask these private schools, is that 71% do not have any kind of human rights code of their own. They do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, disability, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Your tax credit is about using public money to fund that kind of systemic behaviour.

Tell us again, Minister: justify using public money to fund that kind of discrimination.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member can keep repeating it if he wants to, as long as he wants to. That doesn't make it true.

Quite frankly, for him to stand in this place and accuse independent schools -- for example, from the Jewish community, from the Muslim community, from the Christian community -- that somehow or other they are bastions of intolerance and racial hatred, I find quite offensive, and I think most Ontarians would agree with me.

Mr Hampton: Minister, in case you missed it, what Ontario citizens agree with is a Human Rights Code that says you cannot, as an institution, choose on the basis of ability or disability, on the basis of ethnicity, on the basis of age or sex or any of those things. You know that under the Human Rights Code and under your government's policy with respect to your tax credit, you're going to allow all those things to happen. You know there are no standards being brought down by your government. You know they're exempted from the Human Rights Code, and you know that many of these schools do not have their own human rights code.

So I ask you again, Minister: justify taking money out of the public education system and putting it into a private system that clearly discriminates. How do you justify that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We are not in the habit of justifying things that are not true.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is to the Minister of Health, but I would say to the Minister of Education, read your own Human Rights Code.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You can't say anything to the Minister of Education. It's to the Minister of Health. You need to go to the Minister of Health for the next question, please.

Mr Hampton: Well, Speaker, I can use my time any way I wish, I think.

The Speaker: You said to whom you were asking the question, and you can ask the question. That person has to be the one who answers the question.

You may proceed, and your time has started, so you've got less than a minute now.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you have received over four reports in the last six months from KPMG, from Deloitte and Touche, and from PricewaterhouseCoopers that tell you that you are underfunding the health care system from one end to the other, whether it's long-term care, community care or hospitals.

I note that these companies, like PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG, are some of your favourite companies when they happen to agree with you. Now that they are issuing reports that say you are underfunding the system, can you tell us why you're not so quick to agree with them, when you are so quick to agree with them all the other times?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Some of my best friends are accountants. I can say to the honourable member that I do agree with the conclusion. The problem is a difference of premise when it comes to the KPMG report. I said in this House, and I'll say again, that if this government were planning or were implementing an 8.3% decrease in hospital funding, I suppose all the terrible things KPMG mentioned as a logical result of that would come to pass. But fortunately for everyone who is involved in the provision of quality health services to the people of Ontario, that is not occurring. There is no 8.3% decline in funding. Indeed, funding has gone up year after year as long as Mike Harris has been Premier. Funding has gone up year after year; indeed, over 25% since 1998. That is the most accurate thing I can say about that.

In terms of the PWC report, I can tell the honourable member that, again, the report was commissioned by us, and it recognized some managerial problems that had to be solved with the CCACs. We agree with the report on that as well.

Mr Hampton: Minister, all I can say is that when these companies happen to agree with your government, you're so quick to cite their studies. KPMG has said to you that because of your underfunding of the hospital sector, you're looking at 6,000 lost jobs, 73,000 fewer admissions to hospital, 2,200 fewer hospital beds and 900,000 fewer outpatient visits.

In terms of the CCACs, the PricewaterhouseCoopers study and other studies point out to you that if you were to take their advice, you can actually in the longer term save some money for the health care system. That is what they are really telling you, that your direction of underfunding CCACs this year, forcing more patients into hospitals, into long-term-care facilities, into emergency rooms is going to cost you more money, which then creates the need in the hospitals. Four studies. Your government otherwise is only too happy to agree with these companies. What's wrong with them now? Why don't you follow their advice now, Minister?

1420

Hon Mr Clement: Again, let's make sure we all agree on what we're talking about here. The KPMG report said that without adequate funding -- and their definition of "without adequate funding" was an 8.3% decline in funding levels. Then you would get fewer patient services, up to 73,000 in patient admissions, 2,200 fewer staff beds etc. Fortunately, despite the Cassandras on the other side, that isn't happening. When it comes to the PWC report, it's very clear that there are managerial issues that have to be solved; there are standards issues that have to be solved with our CCACs. If those issues are solved, we can be assured that more money goes to the front lines, goes to the nurses, goes to the home care providers that are contracted for by our CCACs to help our seniors, help our elderly, help those who are handicapped and reliant upon the system. We agree with that report.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. We heard the news late last week that the RCMP conducted -- some people would call it a raid -- let's call it a sweep, of the Premier's office to try to obtain, apparently, evidence and documents that are being hidden by the government, because why else would they be there?

On at least two occasions the RCMP have been forced to go into the Premier's office to look for documents and evidence that apparently were not forthcoming, despite the assurance in this House of the Premier that he would be fully co-operative with the inquiry and with the commission. Can the Deputy Premier tell us today why it is that the RCMP would then have to sweep into the Premier's office to obtain documents and evidence, if indeed the Premier had said that all evidence was available to anyone in the commission who wanted it?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I thank the member opposite for the question. In response, in fact the Office of the Premier has co-operated fully with the commission, with the O'Connor inquiry looking into the events in Walkerton. All of us want to get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton. That indeed is why the government appointed Mr Justice O'Connor to conduct the inquiry.

There has been no forced transfer of documents. There has been no situation in which documents have not been forthcoming. In fact, every deadline for document production has been met, every deadline set by the commission has been met by the Premier's office, even extremely tight deadlines have been met by the Premier's office, and thousands and thousands of documents have been provided. As the Premier said initially when Mr Justice O'Connor was appointed, we will co-operate fully with the inquiry, which is exactly what the government has been doing.

Mr Bradley: The Deputy Premier can look as solemn and serious as he wants about this and look into the camera and tell everyone that somehow everything has been produced. We get back to the question, however. If there was so much co-operation with the commission, if all the documentation was provided, I have to ask the Deputy Premier why it is, then, the RCMP on at least two occasions would have to conduct a raid on the Premier's office to be able to obtain that information.

Everybody recognizes that all the major decisions in this government are made in the Premier's office. We recognize that a lot of documents have been filtered through the Premier's office, documents that start out one way and end up another way when they appear before the policy and priorities board of cabinet. So I go back to the Deputy Premier to ask him, if all those documents were voluntarily provided to the commission, why would they on two occasions have to have the RCMP come in to investigate?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I appreciate the fact that the member opposite feels my assurances are insufficient, so perhaps the assurances of the counsel to the commission will be sufficient for the member opposite.

Paul Cavalluzzo, as reported in the Toronto Star last week, said, "The Premier's staff co-operated fully with the RCMP's Wednesday search.

"`The purpose of the visit was that we have an RCMP member who is an expert in computers who we had do imaging from computers in the Premier's office,' Cavalluzzo said. `It should be noted that this visit was done with the full co-operation of the Premier's office. It wasn't a raid in any sense.

"`It's just that in the natural course of the inquiry, that's how we obtain documents.'"

All documents requested have been produced. The visit was at the request of the commission and was a matter of full co-operation by the Premier's office. It's important that we get to the bottom of what happened at Walkerton, and I'm sure the honourable member opposite agrees.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Minister of Health. This past weekend, we had a serious situation in London: a couple of serious motor vehicle accidents. One scene consumed five ambulances, and certainly my hopes are that those people are OK. The emergency plan in London did work well; surrounding communities' ambulances responded to take on some of the other emergency calls.

Just a few months ago I had to call for an ambulance myself when my son fell and cut himself and started bleeding profusely. I can tell all members of this Legislature, no matter what kind of training you've had, and I've had some, when it's your own child you do not do well under those circumstances.

The people in London want, certainly need, more ambulance service, and this has been an issue that's been going on now for some time: the 50-50 funding arrangement. Will the province of Ontario commit more funds for Middlesex county for ambulance services?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for London-Fanshawe for his question and for describing some of the personal ways in which ambulance services can be of assistance to citizens.

In the year-end 2000-01, the government of Ontario provided approximately $410 million for emergency health services, and about 75% of that was allocated to the provision of land ambulance services. In Middlesex county they did submit a request for 50% funding, which is the norm, and that request for provincial funding was approved as is. As part of that 50%, we provided 50% funding for two additional ambulances for Middlesex, one of which went into service in December of last year and the other in January of this year.

Certainly, the provision of excellent ambulance services in Middlesex is on our minds.

Mr Mazzilli: I've been speaking to paramedics and so on about these two extra ambulances, and I'm not sure where the problem is, whether the county is not committed, but certainly we need these two ambulances on the road.

I will be following up on this issue, because I believe one of the big problems here is patient transfer. Although we have a complement of eight ambulances, when you look at it, two or three ambulances are, on a constant basis, conducting patient transfers from other areas or to other areas. In the case of Saturday, we actually benefited from patient transfers because two ambulances were in town from other jurisdictions and helped with emergency calls.

Minister, I will be following this up with your office, and I certainly believe that London needs more than the current eight ambulances that we have on the road.

Hon Mr Clement: Again, I thank the honourable member for putting his perspective on the table, and clearly there is work afoot that he is leading in his community to see what impediments are in the way that can be removed, and I commend him for that. A lot of the municipalities, now that they are seized of this issue with the land ambulance transfer, are looking at new and innovative ways to reduce some of the pressure. In Toronto, in London and in Peel region, my own region, there are a number of medical transportation initiatives looking at ways to transport patients in non-emergency situations in different and creative ways.

I want the honourable member to know and this House to know that this ministry and myself have publicly indicated our willingness to discuss these issues with the municipalities to come to mutually agreeable solutions that work for people in Ontario.

1430

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Safety-Kleen, Minister, is the largest toxic hazardous landfill and incinerator in Canada and it's located in St Clair township in my riding. Do you know, 70% of that waste comes from outside Ontario.

You and I understand that it's within provincial jurisdiction to refuse or accept toxic hazardous waste being dumped in this province. There was one leak on the site in 1999, and now it's come to my attention that there is yet another leak. I am asking you, Minister, if because of the landfill toxic hazardous waste -- we've been called the garbage can for toxic waste. I'd like to know if you will make rules, Minister, or legislation for toxic landfills as tough as those in the United States.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I am truly pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the member opposite, because it appears the member opposite is not aware of the amendments that this province undertook on March 31 of this year to strengthen our hazardous waste framework.

I am pleased to say that we now have the toughest standards and framework in Ontario's history. At that time we introduced stringent new testing requirements and we expanded the list of known toxic chemicals from 31 to 88 chemicals. I'm very pleased to say that we are well ahead of the 40 that are identified in the United States regulation. We also brought "derived from" standards in line with the US EPA. Again, we have moved forward to very, very much ensure that the hazardous waste policy in this province is as strong as it should be.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, "as strong as it should be" is not as strong as that of the United States or stronger. You understand -- I know you do -- the danger to public health by the increase in the dumping of hazardous waste.

We have an incinerator there as well, and the future environmental impact of that incinerator and the increased use of that incinerator. I have written and have requested that we make sure we have a full public environmental assessment before we increase the incinerator. You have responded that there doesn't need to be a full public environmental assessment on the incinerator. Therefore, you are telling me that it's the greatest in Ontario's history, but compared to the United States, it isn't, and the incinerator doesn't need a full environmental assessment. Minister, are you going to accept responsibility for groundwater contamination and for people's health when it comes to the effects of the incinerator?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I recognize that the member was not aware of the new hazardous waste framework that came into effect in March of this year, but I'm pleased now that she is informed. So I guess subsequently she has asked another question regarding Safety-Kleen. As she knows full well, she did bring this issue to my attention. We have responded. In response to the request to deal with the Safety-Kleen site, an on-site inspector has been hired. That action was taken to provide an immediate and enhanced level of monitoring at that facility.

Again, if she has any new concerns whatsoever, I would encourage her, as I've encouraged her in the past, to bring them forward to the ministry in order that we can determine any further steps that need to be taken to ensure that the environment and the health of people in that community can be protected.

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Minister, I recently had the privilege of presenting an Ontario Trillium Foundation cheque in the amount of $203,300 over three years to the Peel lunch and after-school program. This funding will help this excellent program to recruit more high school volunteers and to develop volunteer programs with local community-based organizations.

Our government has a strong record of assisting social service agencies through the Ontario Trillium Foundation, but in the past couple of years there has been new competition for Trillium funding from arts, culture, recreation and environmental organizations. Minister, can you explain why Trillium funding is now being allocated to a wider variety of sectors?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I appreciate the question from the member for Mississauga South, and I want to congratulate all people involved with the Peel lunch and after-school program. I know the member herself is a very strong supporter of the good work they're doing in the community of Mississauga. The member is right: we have expanded those who are eligible for the Trillium program under the Mike Harris government; for example, the arts and culture community, recreation, as well as environmental projects.

Interjection: Bocce ball.

Hon Mr Hudak: Bocce would be included as well. A very strong bocce club in Port Colborne,as a matter of fact, received a grant from Trillium under the previous minister, Helen Johns. That was done to reflect a need in the community to reflect some of the funding that was going to charities before. Not only, though, I would say to the member, have we expanded those eligible projects, but we have increased the funding to the Trillium Foundation by more than 10 times the value under previous governments, now $100 million from our charitable gaming initiatives to support good projects in communities like Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: Over the past 20 years PLASP -- Peel lunch and after-school program -- under the dynamic leadership of Sylvia Leal has been an exemplary role model for many organizations in Peel and across Ontario. In my riding of Mississauga South and across Ontario, there are a number of other fine organizations looking for support from Trillium to help them continue with their work and expand their involvement.

As you mentioned, with the new eligibility of the arts, culture and recreation sectors, there are even more priorities to be balanced. How does the Trillium Foundation balance priorities when making their decisions among the many groups seeking support?

Hon Mr Hudak: I thank the member for a very insightful question; hopefully my response will be instructive. The member is right. There are over 300 community volunteers involved in the Trillium Foundation on 16 regional grant review teams. The reason we're doing that is just as the member had expected: we want to make sure that local priorities are reflected among the local grant review teams so they can come forth with important priorities in their particular communities, whether it's arts and culture, recreation, the environment or social services.

Most important of all, the goal of the Trillium Foundation is to bring a very strong community spirit and pride, to build strong and vibrant communities for investment in job creation. I want to commend all the Trillium volunteers and the 16 grant review teams for their hard work and the number of hours they put in evaluating projects and bringing forward good projects like the Peel lunch and after-school program, and to tell them on behalf of the Mike Harris government to continue to do their good work.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Community and Social Services: Minister, how can you be content to let adults with severe disabilities languish in institutions, under questionable circumstances, when their own parents say these people would be better off at home with them? In today's Globe and Mail we read about a woman with cerebral palsy who wants to live at home, but your government won't give her the money to get the round-the-clock care she needs to do it.

In my own riding, you're well aware of 31-year-old Hasit Khagram, who has been confined like a laboratory rat to an institutional room where he can't even have human contact with his own distraught mother. Hasit has autism, and the longer he's holed up in a room alone, the quicker he regresses. His mother's in a panic. She needs proper funding to be able to get the round-the-clock care Hasit would need to be able to live with his family again. How can you ignore that plea?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Expanding opportunities for community living is a priority for the government. I can't talk about particular cases because I don't have permission to talk about their personal health information in public.

I can say we've brought in record investment. Two years ago, we increased funding for developmental disabilities by $35 million, and last year by $50 million. Earlier this month the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government, announced an unprecedented investment to expand community living, to expand supports to people in their own home, or building more group home beds, putting more money into community-based services like respite care, behaviour management and a range of other supports to help people live with the dignity they deserve.

Mr Kormos: In dignity, Minister? I know Hasit; I know his mother. Hasit Khagram's future lies very much in your hands. Hasit's mother lost custody of her son last summer because you sought custody and a judge ruled she didn't get enough money from your ministry to get the help she needs to keep Hasit at home.

1440

Since then, he has been thrown into an institution. Things have gone downhill. He walks around in soiled underwear. He urinates on the floor. He pounds his face with his own clenched fist. He rips out his own fingernails. He's locked up in solitary confinement with one single piece of furniture bolted to the floor, as he's viewed through Plexiglas.

He has no human contact. He hasn't been outdoors for over six months. His mother is denied human contact with her own son. She has to speak to him through small holes drilled in the Plexiglas, where Hasit whimpers, "Mommy, home. Mommy, home."

Tell me, Minister, is it worth saving a few bucks to watch a young man, a human being, languish like Hasit in the hell you've created for him?

Hon Mr Baird: The situation the member describes is obviously an incredibly disturbing one. This government has made this area a tremendous priority. I cannot, and I do not think it would be appropriate if I were to, discuss people's personal health information here on the floor of the Legislature. You mentioned a circumstance where an issue of custody arose. I'm obviously not going to get involved and discuss that.

I can say we have provided an unprecedented commitment, by more than a $250 million, to expand community living. We're providing substantial supports to associations for community living right across the province. We're providing substantial supports to build up capacity, to have stronger communities and stronger families.

As the member opposite will know, I am always available to discuss cases on a case-by-case basis, and if there are ways we can look to to provide additional support, I would be more than pleased to sit down and talk to you about them.

RED TAPE COMMISSION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, and it concerns the Red Tape Commission. You will know, Minister, as do more and more members of this Legislature, that the Red Tape Commission is apparently a very influential body that was created by the Harris government some five or six years ago.

My question today is a very simple one: given the extraordinary mandate of the Red Tape Commission, can you tell the Legislature this afternoon what specific confidentiality rules and oaths of secrecy apply to the members of the Red Tape Commission, given the very sensitive information with which they apparently deal?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, with respect to the Red Tape Commission, over the past several years they have created a very positive initiative for this government. Because of that, thousands and thousands of needless red tape measures in government, particularly from previous governments, have been gotten rid of. This has made a better climate for business. These are things the people, the electorate, have been asking for. They were key parts of our platform.

The Red Tape Commission deals with process questions. This is what we're dealing with, by and large. These are things with needless red tape; for example, we're talking about things like not being able to stock bars in hotels on Sundays. The Red Tape Commission deals with processes; they don't deal with confidential information. This is what we have enabled them to do.

Mr Conway: Let me tell you what the cabinet office is telling us the Red Tape Commission does. "According to Ontario's cabinet office, the Red Tape Commission is inextricably" linked "to the cabinet decision-making process. The Red Tape Commission reviews policy proposals, draft legislation, cabinet submissions" etc. It is quite clear that the Red Tape Commission has unprecedented access to a wide range of very sensitive government and cabinet information.

Currently the co-chairs of this Red Tape Commission are Frank Sheehan, a private citizen, and Steve Gilchrist, the member of the Legislature who, after a very few weeks in cabinet, was kicked out because apparently he could not meet the cabinet's ethics standard. That is whom we've got heading this commission.

I repeat: it's very clear that this Red Tape Commission has extraordinary access to a wide range of exceptionally sensitive and important cabinet information. The question remains. What, Minister, are the specific confidentiality and secrecy obligations that you and your government apply to the membership of this Red Tape Commission, and how specifically do you enforce --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I can only reiterate that this whole process is about getting rid of needless red tape. Red tape is a process; it's process-oriented. That's one of the reasons they're consulted, to make sure we don't in fact add additional red tape and provide stumbling blocks to economic development in this province.

I also beg to differ with the characterization of the member for Scarborough East, who certainly is a fine member who represents his area quite well. That's really an unfair characterization.

Red tape been something that was talked about prior to 1995. In the Common Sense Revolution, we committed to cutting red tape out of government. If I recall, back in 1995 in your particular political book, your member -- when I went in to debate in 1995, he committed to get rid of half the red tape in this province. What the heck is that about? You either commit to getting rid of red tape or you don't. Another halfway Liberal measure: again, you can't commit one way or the other.

FARM DEER AND ELK

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. From my understanding, you've recently announced the healthy futures partnership program for deer and elk farmers. This will benefit monitoring the transfer of deer and elk between provinces. Constituents in my riding and members of this industry in Ontario are very interested in this project. Could you please explain to the members of this Legislature and my constituents what this project's all about?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Our government and the Canadian Cervid Council will share in the cost of putting in place an inventory for Ontario's farm deer and elk. This project also has a velvet tagging component to it, which would allow the industry to thoroughly address the issues around product quality. Healthy futures for Ontario agriculture will provide about 70% of the funding for this, in the amount of about $128,000.

One of the reasons for doing this is that this will allow the deer and elk farmers to meet the demands of the market this year in the industry and to reap the dividends for tomorrow. It also means that Ontario's deer and elk farmers are on a more equal footing with producers elsewhere in Canada and this industry becomes more self-reliant. This project will help the deer and elk farmers provide new guarantees of quality and safety through a trace-back system.

Mr Barrett: Being from a rural riding, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, I do get inquiries regarding the lack of a provincial animal health act. Constituents have told me that other provinces have legislation that regulates the transfer of animals between provinces. I have a constituent who is very concerned about this issue. Could you please tell us what your ministry has done to address some of these concerns?

Hon Mr Coburn: We have put strong controls in place with regard to regulating the transfer of animals between provinces. For example, we have an active health surveillance program and an extensive technology transfer program. My ministry also works with the deer and elk industry and other levels of government, and with university partners and veterinary inspectors, to help ensure high standards of animal health. This helps in disease detection and effective disease control.

I can assure the member and our constituents that our current legislation, such as the Meat Inspection Act, the Milk Act and the Livestock Community Sales Act, is a key element in maintaining the highest level of quality and safety when it comes to transferring animals between provinces.

NORTHERN CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. For months, in fact years, we have been bringing you the stories of residents of northern Ontario who have no choice but to travel to get the health care they need. We have asked you to treat northerners fairly. We have asked you to end the discrimination that condones two different standards for the treatment of cancer patients in this province.

Last week, the auditor agreed that your policy is, and I quote, "inappropriately discriminatory," but when you were asked why you've delayed so long in changing this, you said it hadn't been an issue that long. Minister, you may not have been aware of this issue for long, but your government has known about it for years. Will you finally act to end the discrimination against northern cancer patients?

1450

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There's some confusion on this side of the House whether the honourable member said "auditor" or "Ombudsman." It was the Ombudsman who did report on Thursday, and the honourable member is aware of that.

I can tell the honourable member that I have directed the ministry of course to take the Ombudsman's conclusions very seriously. I have also directed the ministry to look at all travel grants throughout Ontario, northern Ontario, southern Ontario, cancer care travel grants for breast and prostate cancer, as well as travel grants for other health issues. Certainly the Ombudsman's conclusions and findings will be taken into consideration.

Mrs McLeod: I believe the review you've just described sounds exactly like the review that your government undertook of the northern health travel grant under your predecessor a year ago. I know the other thing you said last week was that you would not end your discrimination against northern cancer patients until you had a viable option. I would suggest to you that the only viable option to discrimination is to end the discrimination.

When the Ombudsman tried to get a copy of the review your predecessor initiated a full year ago, you embargoed it. It is only the second time in history that the Ombudsman has been refused access to a report in the course of an investigation. I suspect the reason that report was embargoed and not made available to the Ombudsman is that you have a viable option in front of you right now in that report that you want to bury. Will you release that report today so that we can all see what alternatives you're going to propose to end these years of discrimination?

Hon Mr Clement: I can assure the honourable member that the reason the documents she references are being embargoed is because they are cabinet documents, and in our system of parliamentary government, as she well knows, they are embargoed to the extent that cabinet is seized of the issues. Maybe that will change some day soon.

I can tell the honourable member that my position is the same as my predecessor's position. We want a fair travel grant scheme, a just travel grant scheme that is fair to everyone in the same degree in northern Ontario and southern Ontario. We will not rest until we have a viable plan that is fair and just to every citizen here in Ontario. The work on that continues. I wish I had a magic wand that could wave the situation away. In this case, it does take a little bit of time, and we're applying ourselves to it.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Minister, there has been a lot of discussion about the growing health care costs here in Ontario and the future sustainability of the health care system. Although our government has increased health care spending from some $17.4 billion in 1995 to $23.5 billion this year, and that's far higher than our commitment back in the campaign of 1999, there are still critics who are concerned about the future of health care. With an aging and growing population, creating an increased demand on the health care system, there are sure to be problems in the future. Minister, what is Ontario's current position on health care financing?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Ontario is very concerned that we have top-quality, first-class health care for all of our citizens across the province. We have always considered health care to be a number one priority. Our Premier has been a leader in securing health care funding for Ontario. At the first ministers' meeting last September, working with other provincial and territorial leaders, pressure was put on the federal government to increase their spending on health care. It was a welcome first step but not enough.

In fact, Ontario's share right now of the total health care spending has only been traditionally about 12%. It will go up to 13%, and that is a very far cry from its original agreement, to be part of a 50-50 arrangement. Right now, health care consumes 45% of Ontario's budget. That's $745 per second on health care. We have been a leader in urging the federal government to be a health care partner and will continue to do --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I understand the federal Liberals have created a commission to address the future of the health care system on a national level. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I'm sure you're encouraging Ottawa to assume a fair share of health care, something they certainly haven't been doing in the past. You would think, with the comments from the Liberals across the House, that maybe they'd speak to their federal cousins about doing something about fairness in health care.

However, given the pressing need to address increasing health care costs, how does Ontario intend to advance its concern about financing at a provincial level, in spite of the lack of support from the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I do hope my colleagues from across the way in the Liberal Party will begin to talk to their federal Liberal cousins about how to be equal partners here in Ontario. It's long overdue, not only in Ontario but across the country. In fact, the projections for health care spending are indicating that it will grow from $56 billion to $100 billion in 10 years, and that is clearly a tremendous pressure. My colleagues in the provincial-territorial council are going to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take a seat. The member for Windsor West, come to order, please.

Minister?

Hon Mrs Elliott: A lot of noise but no action.

My colleagues on the provincial-territorial council are going to be making a presentation to the Premiers' conference this August. I know Premier Harris is going to continue to talk about health care, and I suspect, having spoken to my colleagues across the country, that health care will still continue to be a number one issue.

Mr Romanow has been appointed by Prime Minister Chrétien to discuss health care --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. For some months I have been pointing out to you that your policy of deregulation of electricity, privatization of electricity and higher electricity rates is going to lead to a loss of jobs in this province. This past weekend it struck home in the community of Kenora, where Abitibi-Consolidated has closed their paper mill. The company is very clear that it is the higher electricity rates that your government has presided over which are forcing them to close the mill.

This is only the beginning, Minister, because, as you know, you are receiving warning letters from companies in the mining industry, other companies in the pulp and paper industry, all of them pointing out to you that as you raise electricity rates, it creates incredible costs for them -- costs which they can't sustain.

My question to you is this: how many jobs losses are you prepared to sustain as you go down the road of California and Alberta and privatize our electricity system and move into an American style of deregulated electricity prices? How many jobs are you prepared to sacrifice?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): As I've pointed out on countless occasions in this House, Abitibi-Consolidated is in favour of introducing competition in our electricity sector. They see it as a way of curing the sins of the past, sins that were not looked at by the honourable member in the past when he allowed, along with the Liberals, $38 billion worth of debt to accumulate in the old Ontario Hydro. This government has a plan to control that debt, to eventually pay down that debt and to lead to the lowest possible prices for companies like Abitibi.

The honourable member is dubious in his facts when he fails to mention the labour unrest that they've had at Abitibi and numerous other problems, the least of which is the cost of power at this point.

Mr Hampton: The minister should talk to the manager of the Kenora mill who said the company has met with Ontario Power Generation seeking a way to restructure how the mill purchases electricity: "We are trying to find a solution to our power costs" -- power costs that have gone up by 14% as a result of your government's move to sell off our electricity system.

I just want to remind you that yesterday the California independent market operator -- you know, the independent market operator that you're copying here in Ontario -- warned people across the state to expect at least two, possibly three days of blackouts and to be ready to deal with much higher electricity prices. As you move toward selling our publicly owned electricity system to international energy companies who are more interested in selling the power in the United States where they can get a much higher price, what's your answer to all those Ontario manufacturers, all those Ontario small businesses? How are you going to help them deal with electricity prices that are going to double, if not triple, once you integrate us into the American market?

1500

Hon Mr Wilson: First of all, I don't know what he's talking about. California does not have an independent electricity market operator. Secondly, we are not California; we have an abundant supply in Ontario. What we have to do is deal with the sins of the past and deal with the debt and provide consumers with choice and provide them with the lowest possible costs in the electricity sector.

I wonder what the honourable member is going to say to the mills in his riding and to those up north that have been pounding on my door to, first of all, as quickly as possible open our market to competition so they can buy for themselves new generating plants, so they can generate their own electricity for the first time and not be subject to the rules of the monopoly of Ontario Hydro, which were very unfair to independent electricity producers in this province. What does he honestly say to the people in his riding who have been in my office here in Toronto, who have been begging me to open the market, including Abitibi-Consolidated, so they can get on and make their own energy arrangements and not have to pay these excessive prices that were brought to us by the monopoly?

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Back in the 1995 election, your party promised to introduce a shelter allowance program in the province of Ontario. You would be advised that the Housing Connections office here in the city of Toronto has begun to post a sign in their office, telling prospective applicants that they need not bother to apply -- actually, that it will be a 10-year wait for them to be able to get into a housing unit once they have applied.

In your election document, you said that you would eliminate the two-year waiting lists. So my question is, when did you implement your shelter allowance program, and how well is it working in light of the fact that the Housing Connections office in the city of Toronto has now told prospective applicants that their wait will be a minimum of 10 years?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I am pleased to remind the member opposite that in the budget this year, a month ago, there was an important initiative that had been sought by those in the industry in the business of building affordable housing, and that was to provide a greater incentive for the development of new affordable rental housing. It was proposed in the budget, and the government intends to extend the time horizon of the new multi-residential property class from eight years to 35 years. It is an important initiative.

The honourable member opposite looks perplexed. If he's unfamiliar with it, it's important to understand what that means in terms of the ability to finance affordable housing over the long term. Eight years was the rule; the rule now should be 35 years, which will open up that market, particularly in a financing way, to increase affordable housing.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

I sign my name to this petition and give it to Meera.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got thousands of names here of citizens opposed to the tax credit for private schools.

"Whereas the announced tax credit for private school tuition will lead to government funds being directed to private education rather than the underfunded public school system that is mandated to educate all children, regardless of cultural, religious or socio-economic status;

"Whereas the education tax credit of up to $3,500 per child, when fully implemented, will lead to an increase of students being enrolled in private schools to the detriment of the public schools;

"Whereas there will be no accountability for the use of public funds allocated through the education tuition tax credit; and

"Whereas the advocates for religious schools have indicated they will continue to seek full funding for religious education with the potential result of more public funding being diverted to private schools;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario Legislature to vote to remove the education tuition tax credit from Bill 45, the Ontario 2001 budget legislation.

I support this petition fully.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition from the community of Wawa, supported by hundreds of letters from Wawa youth, to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources called for proposals with respect to surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood;

"Whereas Wawa Forest Products submitted a proposal for this surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood which included the building of a manufacturing facility in Wawa within the township of Michipicoten;

"Whereas on April 6, 2001, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced allocations of a portion of the surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood to Grant Forest Products in Timmins and Englehart, and Algoma Mill Works in Blind River;

"Whereas the residents of the township of Michipicoten believe that the proposal submitted by Wawa Forest Products is viable and will result in a desperately needed economic boost to the community and provide the industrial assessment needed for the continued viability of the community;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Minister of Natural Resources arrange a meeting between officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Wawa Forest Products and the township of Michipicoten. The reason for such a meeting is to coordinate a consensus on minor differences that may exist in the plan submitted by Wawa Forest Products. It is the hope of the township of Michipicoten and its residents that such a meeting would result in the construction of the Wawa Forest Products mill in Wawa."

I agree with this petition, and I affix my signature.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've got a standing-up-for-public-education petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education."

It's signed by thousands of signatories and by myself.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very happy to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Mississauga South and the constituents of the member for Oakville, Garry Carr, who, as Speaker, is not able to present petitions in the House. It's to the Parliament of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Sithe Energies Canadian Development Ltd is actively pursuing the development of an 800 MW electricity generating facility;

"Whereas the 14-hectare parcel of land on which the station is proposed is located on the east side of Winston Churchill Boulevard in the Southdown industrial district of Mississauga;

"Whereas Sithe has stated its commitment to an open dialogue with communities where it has a presence and to being responsive to the concerns of the same; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Ontario citizens and to determine how this facility will impact those who live in its immediate, surrounding area,

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

"That the government of Ontario direct the Ministry of the Environment to undertake a formal environmental assessment of the Sithe project."

I am very happy to add my name to this petition.

1510

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have more petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and, therefore, that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the northwestern and northeastern Ontario Cancer Care centres have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their own communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from the Hamilton second level lodging home tenants committee, and I would point out that these petitions are signed not just by Hamiltonians but by people from Fort Erie, Ottawa, Cobourg and other areas. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas individuals who are tenants and residents in facilities such as care homes, nursing homes or domiciliary hostels under certain acts are provided with a personal needs allowance to meet incidental costs other than those provided by the facility; and

"Whereas the personal needs allowance has been fixed by the Ontario government at a rate of $112 for nearly a decade and has not kept pace with cost-of-living increases, and furthermore is inadequate to meet incidental costs such as clothing, hygiene products and essentials;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately review and amend provincial legislation to increase the personal needs allowance from $112 a month to $160 a month for individuals living in care homes, nursing homes or other domiciliary hostels."

I add my name to this petition as I am in support of it.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children; and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

"Whereas the government plans to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

It's a pleasure for me to assign my signature.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition here signed by a number of people. It reads as follows: