Journal des débats 1996-oct-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm pleased today to rise to speak to Bill 83. I do this, asking for the support of my colleagues in the Legislature, because I feel this is a bill that is non-partisan in nature. It is intended to fill a gap that I feel exists in the present consumer protection legislation. The purpose of the bill is to extend the scope of protection provided to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act to include protection from the practice of negative option billing or negative option marketing with respect to provision of services.

As the members may know, the act is a relatively short one. It is intended that to the wording that is there at the present time we add the word "services," which means "personal property or services furnished to a person who did not request them and a request shall not be inferred from inaction or the passing of time alone, but does not include,

"(a) personal property or services that the recipient knows or ought to know are intended for another person, or

"(b) personal property or services supplied under a contract in writing to which the recipient is a party that provides for the periodic supply of personal property or services to the recipient without further solicitation."

Further, the bill includes two clauses, one being, "No action shall be brought by which to charge any person for payment in respect of unsolicited goods or services notwithstanding their use, misuse, loss, damage or theft," and, "Except as provided in this section, the recipient of unsolicited goods or services, or of a credit card that has not been requested or accepted in accordance with subsection (2), has no legal obligation in respect of their use or disposal."

This really is an issue of fairness. It's fairness to the consumer that I'm seeking here. People should opt for services they want and not opt out of services they don't want. It's also an issue of fairness to business. Bill 83 will help level the playing field for those businesses that play fair with their consumers. Businesses that provide consumers with informed choices win with this amendment.

I too, like many, believe that in many instances it is buyer beware, but there are those instances, in the case of negative option marketing, where the methods used may not always be the fairest. Certainly by far the majority of businesses in the province of Ontario act in a fair and level playing field manner. The real reason we have regulations and laws is not only for those who always abide by the rules but to provide some protection in those areas where some do not always abide by the rules.

Bill 83 puts consumers first. After all, the act it's amending is the Consumer Protection Act. We have felt in the past that there needed to be some protection for consumers when it comes to unsolicited credit and the receipt of unsolicited goods. In this business world today in the 1990s the service industry is one of the most rapidly expanding areas in business. Therefore, I felt that the act needed to be brought up to date and that services needed to be included with the receipt of credit and goods. If the service is confusing, then business should explain it and let the consumer decide. That's the free market action. That's people making choices. That's people making informed choices.

Complexity of a product or service is no excuse for failure to give consumers the opportunity for positive action as opposed to negative action. As just happened recently, and this is only an example, our household received a telephone call from a company that's in the business of consumer products and was offered a disability insurance plan for 60 days free. I have to say I didn't receive the call, although the policy is issued in my name. My wife received the call. She knows of my concern in this area, so in the normal course of events as to what might happen in many households she said, "Why sure, send it out." It's a $250,000 group insurance policy. The letter I received with it says:

1010

"You don't pay a cent for the first 60 days. Your first 60 days of protection are provided at no cost to you. For your convenience, after the 60-day bonus period, your monthly premium will automatically be billed to your account."

You might say a prudent person should be able to understand that, but many people might not understand the implications of that, and this is only an example. What happens, I am told, in the industry is that 80% of those who are offered this kind of negative option then go on to pay the premium, or at least it's billed to their account or their bank account. It's only the 20% who then perhaps, after receiving the material, didn't understand it at the outset, don't want the coverage and therefore cancel it. The company then only has to work on that 20%, but I think it's interesting that 80% of the people who are offered options such as this continue to pay it.

We want those companies that take the time to explain, that perhaps take the time to interview the potential consumer, that take the time to get their signature on the dotted line, if you like. We think this bill will level the playing field with those companies that operate in perhaps a more open and understandable way. Clearly it's an issue of fairness to the consumer, but it's also, as I mentioned earlier, an issue of fairness to business by prohibiting what has been popularly called negative option marketing.

I don't want to confuse anybody with the term "negative option billing" as opposed to "negative option marketing." I've introduced that description of it so that you will understand that it covers a much broader area. Marketing is what it's all about. Marketing is what business is about today. We're in a highly competitive environment, and consumers in many cases are deluged with offers of various kinds of services.

I just hope, with the discussion that will ensue on this bill, and hopefully with the passage of the bill, that it will raise the level of awareness and that we can continue to advise the public of its responsibility in the area of purchases, but also the responsibility that business has to be fair, open, honest and do all it can to make sure consumers understand the product they're purchasing.

I'm hopeful that this bill will pass with the support of all sides of the Legislature and that we can act quickly to facilitate the passage of Bill 83. These changes, I suggest, clearly put the consumer first. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate? Normally we go from one party to the third party and then to the Conservatives. If there is unanimous consent obviously, would you -- no? Therefore, the member for Durham Centre.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I'm pleased to have an opportunity this morning to speak to Bill 83. The bill raises once again the issue of consumers and unsolicited goods and services. The Consumer Protection Act now includes goods; it does not include the word "services."

As a matter of principle, this issue has been dealt with recently in a certain context. For example, in the auto insurance context the minister without portfolio with responsibility for privatization has written to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, urging the insurance industry to continue its efforts to explain to consumers the options open to them under the auto insurance legislation, which is Bill 59. His letter also states that the government will not tolerate negative option billing. That's dealing with the specific issue of auto insurance.

In addition, in December 1994 the Honourable Cam Jackson introduced a private member's bill, Bill 206, in the Legislature which did not pass during the majority government of the NDP. It dealt in a more sophisticated and detailed manner with the issue of services and products than does Bill 83, which is before us today.

Having said that, as a matter of principle this bill does address an important issue for consumers in the province. There are serious flaws with the bill that are matters of concern which arise out of the fact that the bill simply seeks to add a word, "services," to the various sections and subsections of the bill which were drafted with goods in mind.

For example, now we have a situation where "services" is not defined in Bill 83, which will lead to doubt and uncertainty. The fact that the same rules that apply to goods have been extended unaltered to services in the bill means that a certain mismatch of concepts occurs which may result in a lack of clarity, which in turn exacerbates the issue of what services are covered or meant to be covered by the sections' provisions.

The definition of "goods" in section 1 of the act is limited to personal property, which tends to be tangible in nature. "Services," however, may be either tangible or intangible, and that's not dealt with in Bill 83. The current legislative language which has successfully prohibited providers of unsolicited goods from suing to recover payment, "notwithstanding their use, misuse, loss, damage or theft," may not provide the same level of protection to a recipient of unsolicited services which may not be capable of loss or damage although arguably capable of use, misuse or theft in certain circumstances.

The point is a lack of clarity and precision and a lack of matching of concepts and definitions in this bill. The result is a rather clumsy effort to accomplish the goal. Having said that, the issue is one that is appropriately addressed in Bill 83. It also doesn't deal with many complaints the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations gets with respect to this type of issue. A great deal of work will have to be done to make Bill 83 into an appropriate, useful piece of legislation for consumers in Ontario.

Having said all that and expressed those quite serious concerns about the flawed nature of this bill before the House today, I certainly don't intend to urge my colleagues in this part of the House to vote against it simply because the NDP majority did not support Mr Jackson's private member's Bill 206 or because the Liberals, on the opposite side, chose to block my private member's Bill 33 and not even let it come to a vote in this Legislative Assembly. I think it's incumbent on us, in dealing with private members' business, to try to support private members' bills that have a kernel of usefulness to consumers in the province. This bill would need a tremendous amount of work to bring it into a condition where it would be a useful and progressive piece of legislation.

For these reasons I intend to vote in principle in support of Bill 83 on second reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'd like first of all to commend my colleague the member for Essex-South on his legislation. We know his great commitment and dedication to consumer protection. I'm sure all members of the House will want to take a very close look at what he's introduced here today.

We see this protection in a good number of provinces. It's protection against what the member has introduced as negative option marketing or negative option billing. I'm suggesting here that the member has done a good amount of research into what is going on in other provinces and I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel when we see that provinces such as Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Quebec have already introduced this type of legislation.

1020

As the member for Essex South has indicated, this is a bill regarding fairness; that, of course, being fairness to the consumer. The people who are consuming the product should be able to opt for the services they want and they should not have to opt out of the services they don't want. In essence, this is what my colleague from Essex South is indicating in bringing forward Bill 83.

As well, we're talking about fairness to business, to businesses that operate throughout all of our communities. Bill 83 will help level that playing field where you have businesses that play fair with the consumer and some that actually don't. I am sure we all, as members, can come up with many examples where we've seen businesses that weren't quite as fair as they should have been with the consumer. I know I have a good number of these cases that come through my door on a fairly regular basis and I think anything to do with the consumer and the protection of the consumer, such as what my friend has introduced here today, is something that everyone in the House should be looking at supporting.

I think what this bill does is to place the consumer first, and that is very important. I've indicated that they've already done this in other provinces and I think it's incumbent upon us as legislators here in the House to place that consumer as other provinces have already done. I think if there's any kind of service that is confusing to the consumer, it should be incumbent upon the business to explain that. Our consumers should be able to make informed choices on information that they should be able to get from businesses before they make their purchases.

There are often very complex rules and regulations or complex negotiations that come with many products. I think it has to be incumbent upon the business to make sure that the consumer is provided with the information that will allow them to make an informed choice when they go to purchase a product or a service. Again, I think that's very important.

The recent auto insurance billing issue is a real example of where the consumers, if they were informed, were able to take advantage of lower rates. Unfortunately, if they were not informed, the bill came in the mail, as it has always, and they weren't informed that there would be premiums that they could actually take advantage of. This where I talk about the uninformed consumer.

I had an example just yesterday where a 20-year-old purchasing insurance for his vehicle found that rates were enormous when he took a look at what he was going to pay here in Ontario. He moved to Manitoba to take a course at school and found out that his rates were one quarter the cost in Manitoba for more coverage on his vehicle. This was a 20-year-old constituent who found a great difference. I don't think the insurance company actually informed him of his choices and what he could have been looking at, so again, I think this is very important that the government help protect that particular consumer.

We take a look at Bill 83 and it recognizes that the Consumer Protection Act has to be updated to reflect the realities of our economy today, our new economy, one that is becoming increasingly based on the transaction of services and one that is changing on a daily basis. I think Bill 83 addresses a long overdue prohibition on the marketing technique that is a severe irritant to consumers.

Some people may argue that negative option marketing can increase efficiency and work to the benefit of consumers. While this could be the case with some businesses, I really don't see where it can actually benefit the consumer. I indicated that an unfair business would come to practise to the business's advantage, so again, I think it's very important that the consumer have the advantage of having informed choices and making those informed choices on information that should be incumbent upon the business to provide.

I would just like to congratulate the member for Essex South on his bill and commend him on all his hard work on behalf of Ontario consumers. I am sure that all members of the House will look at this as a way for us to help the consumer in terms of their purchasing.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to stand on behalf of my party, the New Democratic Party of Ontario, in support of this private member's resolution brought forward by Mr Crozier, Bill 83. I'd like, in the time that I have, to try to explain as well as I can what the bill is about and the rationale for supporting it.

Simply put, it's in order to try to deal with the problem we have in this province of negative option billing. Simply put, those are situations where a marketing firm of one type or another says, "I will send you goods through the mail," or, "I will sell you services through the mail," whatever they might be, and in the delivery of the goods or services a piece of paper comes to your door and says, "If you don't respond within a certain number of days, we're going to bill you for this," so you've got to send it back.

I have seen in my constituency, I'm sure as other members of this assembly have seen in the work that they do as constituency people in their own ridings, a number of people in my riding -- in particular, in the town of Iroquois Falls I remember one issue specifically where the person wasn't aware -- basically it was services that were being brought in in regard to lawn care. The person was sort of told that if they allowed that to happen it was a demonstration and they were going to show it to other people and she would be like the model for the neighbourhood. She said, "Yes, sure, go ahead and do it," type of thing, and what she ended up doing was getting into a contract where the person who wanted to do the work did it over a longer period of time than she ever wanted to do it and she had a real problem trying to undo the damage that had been done.

The problem, quite frankly, is that in the Consumer Protection Act now services are not included in that negative option portion. You can, under the law of Ontario, return goods; that's fairly easy to do. As long as you turn the goods back, there's nothing that they can do. They can't force you to keep the goods or pay for them. But when it comes to services, it's a real problem.

I have another situation. Mr Crozier talks about insurance. Another constituent about a month ago contacted my office about a similar thing. This elderly couple received a letter in the mail saying basically they had this free insurance policy, the same thing that happened to Mr Crozier himself. They thought: "Geez, this is free. I don't have to do anything. If somebody's going to give me something for free, I may as well keep it," not knowing what was going to happen. A little bit later they got a bill. Again, we're trying to work through the process of undoing the damage that was done there.

It wasn't a huge amount of money. It was a monthly policy -- if I remember the numbers correctly, around $32 a month -- but none the less it's not something this particular couple wanted. They already had life insurance; they didn't need any other protection for funeral expenses; they didn't need extra protection for passing on any kind of money to their family. They had taken care of those matters quite a long time before they ever got the letter from the insurance company, but none the less, because the constituent had received it and because the constituent hadn't sent it back, they were stuck with a bill that we're now trying to work our way through to make sure that particular constituent doesn't have to pay.

Unlike what the Conservative member for Durham Centre said, which is that the legislation is flawed, I don't think it's flawed. I think it's fairly clear. If you take a look at what the bill is saying, it's trying to deal with the question of services.

I'm just going to read for the members here, because I always think it's important that when we come in and debate bills we should take the time to read the bill. I am always amazed in debate how many times members of this assembly get up and speak on bills and they haven't even taken the time to read them. I just want to read very quickly in section 1 of the bill what he's getting at. It deals with the definition of unsolicited goods, and the definition goes on to say "personal property or services supplied under a contract in writing to which the recipient is a party that provides for periodical supply of personal property or services to the recipient without further solicitation."

All right? I think it's fairly clear what they're trying to do here. We're trying to get to the question of how we deal with services themselves. I think it's a step in the right direction. I think it's something that quite frankly needs to be done. I think the government has the opportunity here to deal with one particular aspect of trying to protect consumers from unscrupulous business practices carried on by some of the companies in Ontario -- not all. I believe that most companies try to do business in an honest way; in some cases not. This is what this bill is trying to do.

For the member for Durham Centre from the Conservative side of the bench, who said, "I'm going to support this in principle but I want to tell you how flawed it is," listen, you're the government. You guys are the ones who have the ministers' offices. You control the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. If you are so concerned about all those other issues that you raised, the honourable member for Durham Centre, where's the action? When is the minister going to come forward with the legislation to deal with all those other issues that you tend to be concerned about this morning in debate?

You control the Cabinet Office, you control the minister's office, you control the legislation in the House; you have a huge majority in this House. So you have an opportunity to come forward and bring legislation to the table of this House, to the floor of this House, that will deal with your concerns.

1030

What the member opposite from the Liberal Party, Mr Crozier, is trying to say is, "Here is but one aspect of a problem." As a concerned member, the member is saying, "I want to be able to try to advocate on behalf of my constituents and other constituents around the province of Ontario around a particular aspect of consumer protection." I urge the members on the Conservative side of the bench to support this legislation, but not only support it by voting for it at second reading and allowing it to get through the House at this particular point, but I urge you then to go back and to work with the member opposite to lobby your members in the cabinet and lobby your House leader to make sure that the bill doesn't die after second reading.

It's not a big deal; it is not a cumbersome bill, as the member opposite would say. I've dealt with legislation in this House for a number of years and I think this is pretty clear-cut. It was drawn up by legislative counsel. They're the people who write bills. That's what we pay these people for. So for the member opposite to say it's cumbersome I think doesn't bode well to your confidence in the people who work at legislative counsel. These are the same people who write bills for the government, I would add. The thing is, it is not a flawed piece of legislation, so I ask the members to support it.

Again I say go to your cabinet colleagues, go to the cabinet members and say: "Listen, this is a good piece of legislation. I can go back home and I can tell constituents I have dealt with in my riding who have problems like this that the government is doing something about this particular issue." Make sure that the bill not only goes through second reading but goes through the entire process of becoming law.

Then take it one step further. The member for Durham Centre makes a point, and I think it's a valid point. There are a number of issues when it comes to consumer protection legislation that need to be dealt with. As I said before, you're the government. You control this House. You have the majority. Please come forward with legislation in order to deal with that. I will tell you, we on the opposition side of the bench will support you, because I believe the job of an opposition member, as a government member, is to speak out on behalf of their constituents. Where there are areas that we can agree on that are mutually beneficial for our constituents, I think it should transcend party politics.

I think it has to go, quite frankly, to the term you use, which is common sense. I will say now publicly here in the House, you come forward with consumer protection legislation that does some of the things the member for Durham Centre talked about in his speech today, and I will be there with you. I will vote for the bill. I will go out on the streets of the riding of Cochrane South and I will make sure the constituents know what it's about, and I will give you credit where credit is due. But until you do so, I ain't going to do that, because quite frankly I think the member is trying to find some reason to tell the members on the Conservative side of the bench not to vote for this legislation. So you need to make sure that is done.

With that, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to debate this part of the bill and again I would urge members in this House to vote in support of the bill from the member for Essex South, because I think it goes a long way to addressing a lot of the issues that we talked about here this morning.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure this morning to rise and participate in the second reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, and the comments made by the member for Essex South in opening this important debate on the subject of protecting consumers.

I want to draw to the members' attention that the previous speaker, the NDP member for Cochrane South, spent most of his time offering nothing but criticism about the government and its action. At the end of the day, it's this government that's really in the position to make the final decision and vote to support this bill.

I might point out that during his lengthy diatribe, the member did not at any point mention the private member's bill by a member at that time, Cam Jackson's Bill 206. What did the NDP government do at that time? They had the opportunity as government of the day to move forward with significant changes to consumer protection that were involved in Bill 206, a very comprehensive bill that Minister Jackson took the time to develop in 1994, and the government failed to act.

I want to support Mr Flaherty's comments, the member for Durham Centre, being a very distinguished lawyer from the Durham region, who has very significantly pointed out that the weakness in the bill is that it doesn't really in some areas go far enough. I'd like to suggest that this government really -- our effort is to work to help the people on the ground, the people who are working and struggling every day to make a living in their lives. Just think, for example, of the busy working family getting unsolicited mail and businesses offering services that perhaps requires them to read and take some sort of action. Think of the senior citizen who perhaps is victimized by being uninformed in an unsolicited approach for a business or service; or the student. For example, my son just received an unsolicited card in the mail. He had his 18th birthday and, what do you know, he's got a Bell Calling Card and another card in the mail the very next day, unsolicited. Sometimes there's an action required not to pre-empt the service that's being offered.

Working on behalf of people, I think Mr Crozier's bill does add the word "service" to the section of the bill. I think it's a very popular bill. At this time, we are all aware of the federal bill, C-216, which amended the Broadcasting Act, dealing with cable services. This wasn't dealing with consumer protection specifically but more under the regulations of the CRTC.

I'll be supporting this bill, but I am still listening to the full discussion, and I'm looking forward to other members' statements. I really want to leave the one impression, that in today's interactive, Internet world, where you're signing on a system, the buyer has every responsibility to beware of what they're really signing on to buy.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I want to congratulate my colleague for his bill. I think Bill 83 is about fairness. I think as a government we have a responsibility to protect consumers and I think this bill protects consumers. As pointed out by the previous speaker, we have to protect especially seniors, people who don't have access to all governmental information. I think this bill will do this. The way some business people operate today in this province leaves us unsatisfied with some of the ways that are being used to entice people to sign contracts or to buy products without seeing them and also what we call the "fine print." I don't think every one of us in this House does read the fine print. I think Bill 83 protects the consumers.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There's too much noise. I can't hear the speaker even though he's right close to me.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Oh, sorry, Ben.

Mr Grandmaître: It's okay, you're welcome, David.

As I pointed out, I think these people are all talking together because they want to support this bill, and I congratulate them. I think it's a great piece of legislation and it's about time the government protects our consumers. Again, let's hope that the government members, as the previous speaker pointed out -- that not only he but the rest of the Tory members or the Conservative members will support this bill.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to congratulate the member for Essex South for bringing this bill forward and remind folks out there that this is the time, in the very complicated and sophisticated workings of this place, when members of this House, on their own initiative, separated from their party affiliation or most political considerations, bring forward to all of us for consideration issues that sometimes come from constituents who come to their office and share some concern about some regulation or rule that's in place that isn't working for them. Sometimes it's a group of people that come forward and lay on the table of a member an issue that needs to be addressed, that just cries out for address.

That member spends a lot of time researching, working with counsel down here and putting the pieces together so that a piece of legislation can be brought before this House for the full consideration of all the members, and as I said, separated from their normal role of either protecting government or hammering government, to consider something that's in the interest of all of the people of a particular jurisdiction. I would suggest that this morning we have before us just such a bill.

1040

The member has obviously heard from his constituents, I'm sure has heard from others of his colleagues in this place re this question, has seen in the press over the last number of years actually some concern raised about this issue as various and sundry companies and enterprises across Ontario and Canada look for newer and more creative ways to bilk people out of the money they work so hard to earn for products they see, on first blush, as perhaps quite attractive and something that might be helpful to them, but in the end, when they've had some time to think about it, find it's not exactly what it was presented to be.

So this morning as we consider this bill, first of all, it's important that all of the members of the House realize that this is in the interest of the common good of consumers out there and will lay the groundwork as well re a level playing field for business and industry as it works within a set of guidelines and rules that are hopefully fair to everybody. We know in the world we live in how creative new businesses can be and how sometimes they will stretch the envelope to hook somebody into buying a product or entering into a contract that has all kinds of long-term ramifications a person doesn't consider in the initial accepting of and using of, or even sometimes signing for, a particular service or good. I believe today the member is talking about expanding a set of regulations to consider the purchase of or entering into agreement around services as opposed to goods.

We know there are some very good players out there in the business community who are not trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people, who are not trying to foist something on people that they don't necessarily want, but all of us at one point in time or another have probably been stung or have had the potential to be stung by some corporation or company or fly-by-night outfit that will sometimes send you something in the mail with a whole lot of very attractive language and packaging. If you're not on your toes, if you're not somebody who reads a lot of that stuff, who has the time to read that, you can find yourself stuck in something you didn't intend to be stuck in. If we, as legislators in this jurisdiction, can put in place some framework within which all that happens, it will be helpful to everybody.

I also want to make the point that today in our society we have a lot of people out there who are still not as educated as perhaps they would like to be around how this kind of service offer works. We have, for example, a lot of senior citizens out there who, presented with an opportunity by a good salesman at the door, or a package that comes in the mail that looks particularly attractive, want to be cooperative, want to be seen to be helpful or can be convinced very easily that something would be particularly helpful to them. Then when they have a chance to sit down and have a look at that, or talk it over with their family members, or get the first bill in the mail re something they never expected to get billed for, they find that there is no way out, that they're stuck and that they're now having to pay money they sometimes don't have or can't afford.

The fact that the member for Windsor-Essex is bringing this forward for our consideration this morning is certainly a very positive and good opportunity for all of us to try to collectively get our heads around something that doesn't have any political consideration, doesn't have any consideration re whether we're protecting the government or fighting the government, but is doing something in the interest of the common good.

I'm certainly going to be supporting it. I'm going to be listening intently to comments from others who will stand and speak on this. I want to again say thanks to the member for Windsor-Essex for bringing this forward and suggest that other members of the House give it full and due consideration because it is indeed in the best interests of all of us, our family members and our neighbours to do that.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to enter into the debate on the bill introduced by the member for Essex South. I think all of us in this House support the protection of the consumer. I assume this bill is similar to the private member's bill in the federal House of Commons, which I believe is close to proclamation, that was designed to protect people from the cable television services that were foisted on innocent people. People ended up paying for services they didn't even know they were getting. That was the design of that, and there may be other areas of services that we will need clarification on.

I hope this bill passes and goes to committee. I think it's worthwhile spending some more time on it in committee and listening to some expert authority on the legal implications of what's federal and what's provincial, because the federal bill may be designed to apply to some of the services the member for Essex South is speaking of.

I compliment him for bringing it forward. We all appreciate the 48-hour rule. Not to downplay door-to-door salesmen, but some of them are pretty good, particularly with seniors, in selling services and goods that people may not necessarily want or need. We all have members of our families or friends with whom that has taken place. The 48-hour rule and the current section 36 provide the protection with respect to goods but not services, which is essentially what this section is doing.

As the member for Essex South has pointed out, Bill 83 adds to section 36 the word "services" so that if a supplier provides to any person -- and that's not limited to consumers -- unsolicited services without a contractual agreement permitting such an arrangement, the recipient of the unsolicited services cannot be sued by the supplier, nor does the recipient have any legal obligation to pay for said services. I think all the speakers who have spoken today agree generally with that principle, and I hope the bill carries.

I'm not going to repeat the comments made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Durham Centre, Mr Flaherty. He outlined some of the legal pitfalls, and we want to make sure that if this legislation carries on to the future we're not going to be creating more legal problems. I took the time this morning, as a matter of fact, to look up in the Ontario Citator what sort of cases had reported decisions on this section. There aren't very many with respect to the Consumer Protection Act, but listening to the gist of the legal argument put forward by Mr Flaherty, the member for Durham Centre, there are some concerns that this legislation may result in unwanted litigation.

The issue of insurance has been mentioned, by the member for Essex South and others. I don't know whether that's option marketing or not. I do know that one has to be cautious about making this amendment. For example, it is my understanding that if one purchases insurance of any sort and you fail to pay the insurance premiums, the insurance coverage continues for a period of time. I would want to make sure, in listening to the legal counsel who come to the committee, that it's not the intent that the minute the policy expires that's the end of the policy. I hope that's not the intent of the member for Essex South, because it's going to cause problems. Certainly consumers in that particular case benefit from automatic contract renewal by not allowing policies to accidentally lapse. I would want to hear more comments from the legal people whether or not this amendment will cause problems with that situation.

1050

We hear stories where insurance companies add unsolicited coverage, whether it be travel or medical insurance, to a homeowner's policy without discussing it with the client and I believe the member's amendment would cover that situation, because clearly that hasn't been explained, that has not been solicited; it's just unilaterally put in the policy by the insurance company.

We have now got into all the services that are provided by cable television. You'll be able to press a menu and find out you can order goods from the store through television. There is the whole issue of telemarketing via computers. I assume all of that is covered by the federal legislation, but if there are other areas, as I say, we'll need more expert comments to determine that in which case I fully support in principle what Mr Crozier, the member for Essex South, is trying to do.

I too hope this piece of legislation will go to committee, to further protect the consumer. I hope that in the time remaining the member for Essex South will give us some more examples of what he means by services. He gave the one which came to his family, although I think I knew about it, but I'd like to know some more examples about what the intent of his bill is.

The only hesitation I have is that this may overlap with federal jurisdiction and we're going to get into more litigation as to what's constitutional and what isn't constitutional. I hope that in the time remaining he would get into specifically what services the bill is intended to apply to provincially.

I echo the comments of all the members of this House. I believe this bill should go to committee because the intent of the bill clearly is to protect the innocent consumer of this province and I too intend to support the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Applause.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I don't know, David, whether that applause was for me or for your speech. I'll say it's for the speech by the member for Dufferin-Peel who, I think, makes some good points. I'm pleased to see he's supporting the bill. I think he's right when he says it should go to committee so we can have the appropriate input as it progresses through the system.

This is the issue that probably brings people from all political parties together. I want to pay tribute to Bruce Crozier, the member for Essex South, for taking the initiative to bring it forward as a bill this morning as his private member's public business, because it's something that has arisen as a result of our constituents talking to us. Often people are frustrated. They will say to those who are in government or in opposition, to those of us who are in elected office: "We feel concern because we don't see our views reflected in legislation. We have certain issues that we think are important and parliaments or councils never tend to deal with those." That's not an accurate statement, but that's a feeling or an expression which is put forward.

This is one example. There isn't anybody here who doesn't recall the furore when the cable television industry got into this, where they were sending bills to people and people really hadn't asked for the services that were being provided. There was a groundswell of negative comment about this to such an extent that the president or vice-president of one of the major companies got up and had a press conference. I must say that as an example of a person admitting his company was wrong in what he had done, I thought it was an excellent press conference. I thought the person put forward a rather good argument for what the company had intended, but also indicated that he was going to respond on behalf of his company to the consumer complaints that were out there. I think the public felt somewhat empowered by this, and justifiably so, because they saw it as someone imposing services on them that they didn't want.

Mr Crozier, the Liberal member for Essex South, has also raised the issue of insurance in this House, automobile insurance in this case. There's a debate out there of whether that is negative option billing. He has raised the concern he has heard from constituents and others in the province that people have to indicate they don't want a certain service or a certain component of an insurance policy or they end up getting it.

I think the consumer out there is an educated consumer, is an informed consumer today, with all the material and all the choices available to consumers, and I think the consumer would like to make that choice. If the company trying to put forward a product or service has a good product and service, one that's popular, one that's desired, one that's wanted by the consumer, then I think the consumer will make that purchase of that service or product, but to impose it on the person, to have the person go through the procedure of having to say no rather than say yes is a backwards way of doing things.

We must look at some of the situations that face people. People in their lives have a lot of things going on. They may have a personal crisis, there may be a health crisis, a person may be away for a period of time in another province or another country, and an invoice shows up at the house saying that they are going to get the following services. Those people often aren't able to act upon that. Even the people who are able to act upon it get annoyed because they have to take the step of saying they don't want the product or service, but if they are incapable of doing so because they're ill, because there's a crisis of some kind they're facing, because they happen to be very busy at work or, as I've mentioned, in another location, that can cost the person money and a lot of inconvenience.

What is at issue here, as the member for Essex South has pointed out, is the issue of fairness. I think this transcends partisan considerations, and that's always good on the Thursday morning, because we try to look at members bringing forward their favourite issues in a relatively non-partisan fashion, and I want to commend the member for doing that.

It's also fairness to businesses. I remember I made this argument in the Ministry of the Environment, that when you start cutting back on the requirements for companies, what happens is the good companies that have made the purchase of equipment, that have trained the employees, that are being good corporate citizens, are penalized when you weaken the system for somebody else. I think it's applicable in this case. There are companies that use positive advertising to try to persuade people to buy their product and then they invite people to say yes rather than to cancel a particular service. That's as it should be, and those businesses are placed at a disadvantage when others use the negative option billing system.

Bill 83 puts consumers first. It's up to business to market their product positively and many people do that very well and have people within their organizations who do it well. The complexity of a product or service is no excuse for a failure to give consumers a positive option. I think when that argument is made, it's rather condescending to consumers, whether in our jurisdiction or other jurisdictions.

Bill 83 recognizes that the Consumer Protection Act must be updated to reflect the realities of the new economy -- we accept that -- an economy that is becoming increasingly based on a transaction of services as well as goods. It addresses a long overdue prohibition on a marketing technique that I think it's safe to say is a severe irritant to consumers in this province.

Bill 83 is not going to break new ground. Other provinces have already moved on this: British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are also considering such consumer protection amendments.

In concluding my remarks, one of the issues I received the most on in the way of mail and telephone calls was certainly the issue of negative option billing. We as a Legislature, as legislators, have an opportunity to rectify that situation and I urge people to support the member for Essex South and his legislation.

1100

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Essex South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Crozier: I appreciate very much the comments of my colleagues. The debate has enlightened even me on this subject, particularly from the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham Centre. I say in a lighter vein, the amendments I'm proposing were drawn up by a lawyer and I'm just a bean counter, an accountant, so I appreciate his comments and I would appreciate his input, quite frankly.

Mr Flaherty: In a lighter vein.

Mr Crozier: In a lighter vein; I said that.

To the member for Dufferin-Peel, you asked for some examples. If this bill passes and goes to committee, we could certainly discuss these in more detail as they may be applicable to our act and to amendments that are required, but in the case of alarm companies, for example, some companies had introduced new charges as part of an ongoing contract for alarm services without having first alerted subscribers to the charges or obtained their consent. In some areas, a service is defined to include the delivery or provision of access to even electricity, gas and water and other telecommunications. So that, I agree, has to be clarified as to the extent that it's a federal and/or provincial matter.

In the area of insurance: adding travel insurance coverage to homeowners' policies without express authorization of the consumer and without having first advised the consumer of the details of the coverage. There have been examples in the area of home care, window cleaning, chimney services. The list does go on. I think it needs some discussion.

I certainly appreciate the criticism and I think, as any bill that's put before us, it certainly could use the discussion of the Legislature and I would hope that you support it and that it will go to committee for discussion.

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

Ms Martel moved private member's notice of motion number 27:

That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Health should reject the current Sudbury Health Services Restructuring Report as it imposes a solution not reflective of the local solution agreed to by the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council; cuts over 200 acute beds from the Sudbury hospital system; puts Sudbury's ability to act as a regional medical referral centre at risk; will result in significant job losses of front-line health care staff, which will negatively affect hospital services; and does not guarantee 100% reinvestment of savings in the Sudbury community as promised by the previous Minister of Health.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): On your resolution, would you like to lead off debate?

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Yes, I would, Mr Speaker. I am moving this resolution today because I am firmly convinced that we are heading for a health care crisis in my community. We're heading for a crisis for three reasons: firstly and most importantly because this Conservative government has broken a significant promise that it made to the electorate, both in the Common Sense Revolution and then again during the election campaign, and that was that there would be no cuts to health care. But the fact of the matter is, in his effort to try and help finance the tax cut that's going to make those people who have the most in Ontario get even more, this Minister of Health has already announced $1.3-billion worth of cuts to hospitals in this province over the next three years. Those cuts -- the cuts in beds, the cuts in staff and the cuts in services -- are going to have a tremendously negative impact in my community.

The second reason we're heading for a crisis is that the person who should be responsible for this restructuring is so busy trying to hide behind his Conservative-appointed restructuring commission and trying to let them do the dirty work for him that no one in our community is quite sure who at the end of the day is going to make this important decision in our community. When the Minister of Health sat on this side, he always condemned our ministers of health, made sure that they were responsible for everything that went on in the system, blamed them on occasion even for the deaths that occurred in the health care system. Now we have a minister who spends his time trying to say that the commission that he has appointed is arm's length, even though it is completely unaccountable to anyone in this assembly, completely unaccountable to our community, and it should be he and he alone who accepts responsibility for the cuts and the impact those cuts are having, not only in my community but in many others across the province.

The third reason we're heading for a crisis is because the decision that has been made by this non-elected, non-accountable commission in my community is going to result in much poorer health care in my community. Members in this assembly should know that under our government the restructuring committee that was established worked for two and a half years to put together a local solution. That committee was made up of people who live and work in my community, not people who were flown in from Toronto to impose a solution on our community.

The minister rejected that solution, a solution that had been agreed to by the district health council, and instead he sends in his folks from Toronto who meet with 15 pre-selected groups behind closed doors and then scuttle off to Toronto and make a decision that does not reflect the work that was done for two and a half years by people who live and work in our community. That's shameful. That's wrong. Now we're going to have imposed upon us a made-in-Toronto solution, which will not make things better in my community.

What has this Conservative-appointed commission left us? They've decided to close 206 acute care beds in our community. That decision stems directly from the decision made by this minister to cut $1.3 billion out of the hospital system. The former restructuring committee that worked under our minister worked with a bed count that was 200 beds higher than what this commission has come forward with. This commission, when they came to town and met behind closed doors, told the groups that the bed configuration was now much smaller, and it's much smaller because this minister has made a $1.3-billion cut.

We already know that one of the hospitals has taken a good hard look at the numbers and disagrees with the commission fundamentally. One of the hospitals makes it clear that just in order to continue to provide the services that are now provided in our community we need at least 80 more beds. So the commission has it all wrong. We already have people calling us who can't get in or who had their surgery cancelled because there are not enough beds. Someone from the government has to tell me how, by cutting 206 more acute care beds in our community, things are going to improve.

The commission has left us in a vulnerable position. I think it's going to be impossible for Sudbury to continue to operate as a regional medical referral centre. Eighteen percent of the people who use the hospitals in our community come from outside the regional municipality of Sudbury. They come to our community for cancer and cardiac care. If these patients cannot come to our community any longer because there are not enough acute care beds, because there are not enough staff and because we can't provide the same level of service as we do now, the choice for those people is to be referred to somewhere in southern Ontario. This is not acceptable. People in our community from all walks of life have worked long and hard to make sure that Sudbury had the services necessary to help our neighbours elsewhere in northeastern Ontario. We will not accept having northerners flown to southern Ontario to get the care they need because this minister is gutting the system in our community.

The commission has also left us with a significant loss of front-line workers, and that's going to impact on services. I read through the report that the commission put out and it's full of graphs and data and charts and statistics on every conceivable item except probably the most important one, and that is, how many front-line workers are going to lose their jobs. It is inconceivable to me that the commission could put all this kind of information in the report, could close two out of the three hospitals, could cut 206 acute care beds, and could not tell the public in our community how many front-line workers are going to lose their jobs. That is unacceptable, and it shows just how ridiculous the whole process is and how much this process is driven, not to protect health care or make it better, but to cut costs to finance the tax cut of this government.

When you close two of the three hospitals in my community, when you cut 206 acute care beds, you are going to send hundreds and hundreds of front-line health care workers out the door, and that will have an impact on patient care, that will have an impact on the services that we're going to be able to continue to deliver, and that will have a tremendously negative impact on the local economy of Sudbury, because we have tried for many years now to balance public sector employment with our traditional dependence on the mining sector. It is unacceptable that this commission, which works and operates on behalf of this government, cannot tell the people in my community how many front-line hospital workers are going to lose their jobs.

1110

The fourth point: The commission has recommended that only one third of the savings it thinks might be achieved is to be returned to our community. That's about $13.4 million. It's interesting to note that the minister says all the closures that are recommended by the commission are binding on communities, but he will make the decision of how much money will be reinvested in communities. It's interesting when he assumes responsibility under this process.

Compare a recommendation to return one third of the savings to our community with the guarantee that was made by our Minister of Health, Ruth Grier, that 100% of the savings to be achieved through restructuring in Sudbury would be returned to our community, to be invested in the community-based care and supports that we need in our community. There is no commitment by this minister to reinvestment in our community. We have asked in this House what the level of that reinvestment will be. He has not answered. My fear is that this minister will take $42 million out of our community on an annual basis. It will not be returned to this community. It will be used instead to help finance the big tax cut that's going to make those who have the most in our society get even more. That is completely unacceptable to the people in our community.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that I believe my community is heading for a crisis in health care. We are heading there because of the cuts this government has made, contrary to all the promises made during the election campaign and in the Common Sense Revolution that there would be no cuts to health care.

We're heading for a crisis because the Minister of Health tries to hide behind his Conservative-appointed commission and let it do the dirty work of closing hospitals while he throws up his hands and says: "They operate at arm's length. I have nothing to do with it. I'm not going to interfere in this process." At the same time he says that he, however, will have responsibility to determine how much of the saving will return to the community.

We are heading for a crisis in our community because the decision that has come down from this Conservative-appointed commission leaves us with 206 fewer acute care beds, two of our three hospitals closed, hundreds of front-line health care workers going out the door and services that will not be delivered, which will put at risk our ability to act as a regional medical centre.

I call on this government today to urge the Minister of Health not to accept the current proposal that is put out by the restructuring commission, because it will leave health care in Sudbury much worse than it is now.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): It's a pleasure to join in the debate today. It's much the same debate we had yesterday on opposition day, as you're aware. I'd like to talk for a few minutes about some of the comments the member opposite made.

As she is well aware, the health care budget in Ontario has not been cut by this government. I don't know how many times and in what different ways we have to say it, but when we came into power, the budget in health care was $17.4 billion. After our first year the amount of money we had spent on health care was $17.7 billion, an increase of $300 million. I think it's very important for the opposition to at least speak within the facts of the case, which are proven by the financial statements. We have not cut health care spending. We have restructured within the system and reallocated dollars back into the system.

She then went on to speak about cuts to hospitals. I would like to remind the members of the House that the Ontario Hospital Association in the past has been daunted every year by cuts to the system. When we came into power, they asked us to go out three years so they would be able to plan and manage the system better than they had in the past, that they were short of strategic planning that was only one year long. So we went out three years and said, "These will be the cuts over the next three years." We have talked about the first year and we're looking at the second and third years for specific differences based on geographic size. But in effect we have said there will be changes in the budget and we have given them an ability to manage their system within that period.

Yesterday I went through the restructuring commission because both opposition parties talk about the restructuring commission as if these people have no expertise. "They're out to destroy the health care system and they don't give a darn about what's going to happen."

If we look at the restructuring commission, we see that each of those individuals is highly qualified in the area of health care. We have the dean of a medical school at Queen's University; we have the president of the Ontario Nurses' Association; we have people who have worked their entire lives in health care and are concerned about the health care costs. They are not all from Toronto. They are from across Ontario and are all highly qualified individuals who can help us to provide the people and patients in Ontario with the best health care system we can get.

As the member well knows, restructuring is important because in the long run we need to make reinvestments into the health care system. It is truly just not working at this point. We have long waiting lists that affect the quality of health care for people in Ontario. We have people who want to make significant contributions to health care and are unable to as a result of the way the system works now. We have to change the system to make it better for the people in Ontario.

Everybody, all three parties, recognize that. They're all on record as saying that. The Ontario Hospital Association recognizes it. David Martin, in his speech to the Empire Club, which I quoted yesterday, said: "Some look at our system and see how much has been accomplished in terms of restructuring in the past few years. I look at it, and I see how much more" needs to be accomplished.

The nurses are on record, in their vision statement, saying there needs to be change to the health care system. We need a far better integrated health care system which takes into effect the community, which deals with all the things from birth to death, within the system. They say that system has to be much more integrated.

David Naylor, who is the head of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences of Ontario and a special adviser to the restructuring commission, has said: "The winners must be our fellow citizens, both as patients and taxpayers. If action isn't quick, the losers will be the next generation." You can see that a number of people, both inside and outside the House, believe that restructuring has to happen.

I'm the first to admit it's difficult in every area that the restructuring comes about, but Ontario is the last province to enter restructuring. In Saskatchewan the NDP government, I might add, has closed approximately half their hospitals. In Manitoba, studies have shown that there is no evidence that there's been a reduction in services with bed closures. There were more patients being cared for in Winnipeg in 1993 than in 1990, despite considerable reductions in beds. Days that patients spend in the hospital are decreasing. The days per 1,000 residents dropped by 9%. There was no noticeable decrease in access to hospitals for paediatric patients, nor Winnipeg patients, nor patients in the outlying area, which is what the member opposite was talking about. We service such a wider area. In Manitoba there was no decrease in access to hospitals for people outside the urban area. There is no evidence to support what the member said.

1120

She talks very highly of Ruth Grier, the Minister of Health at that time, saying that she would have put all the investments back into the community. I happen to have the quote from her speech delivered in Windsor on June 11, 1993, which says: "Let me address the crucial matter of what happens to the savings achieved in hospital reconfiguration...If the savings from your system reconfiguration exceed the needs identified in your community-based plan; that is, if" --

Ms Martel: What did she say in Sudbury? I am not talking about Windsor; I am talking about Sudbury.

Mrs Johns: If you'll just give me a minute, I'd be happy to tell you what she said -- "that is, if your savings compounded to the extent that Windsor has an integrated spectrum of community-based services and still has savings over and above its plan needs, of course the taxpayers of Ontario will then also get a return on their investment in Windsor, to be used" --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): We are talking about Sudbury. Someone give that woman a wakeup call.

The Acting Speaker: There's too much noise in here. Everyone will have their chance to debate. Set it up with your House leader and we'll do it in an organized way, please.

Mrs Johns: As Minister Grier was saying, these reinvestments will go into "other communities who are far behind." So even in your government you were saying that this was going to happen. I am sure that Ruth Grier would not treat one community differently from another community in Ontario. We're elected to rule equally and fairly throughout the province of Ontario.

I would like to end by saying that restructuring is a difficult process; we're aware of that. What is important is that we have quality health care in the province of Ontario. To do that we have to put more money into a number of areas that my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay is going to speak about.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It's a privilege to get up and respond to the resolution. I will be supporting the resolution as it is in part very similar to what was presented yesterday in debate, and as I supported it yesterday I will support today.

But let me tell you, I don't want to talk about Manitoba, I don't want to talk about a former Minister of Health, I don't want to talk about anything except Sudbury and the effects of this report on the community of Sudbury. I wish the members across the way would understand that when this restructuring commission visits your community it is talking solely about your community. To base it on the Manitoba model or the Alberta model or the British Columbia model or what happened 10 years ago is all gobbledegook. It is a devastation of the health care services in the region of Sudbury and in northeastern Ontario.

If you simply look at the size of the system we're left with -- and I want the members across the way to understand the seriousness and the significance of the size of our system -- we're left with an acute care bed size that numbers 365, down from 571. If you look at Sudbury as a northeastern referral centre, it is impossible for us to fulfil the mandate that's given to the region of Sudbury as a referral centre. If you look at only 100 chronic care beds, that's not enough to fulfil the mandate as a referral centre for northeastern Ontario. If you look at only 31 mental health beds, you're looking at a system that's not big enough to act as a referral centre for northeastern Ontario. If you're looking at 31 rehab beds, you're looking at a system that isn't big enough to suit the needs of northeastern Ontario. There's no provision for transitional or repatriated beds that will make the system big enough to be the referral centre for northeastern Ontario.

Statistics prove -- and these statistics were given to the Health Services Restructuring Commission -- that last year 35,556 patient days were designated as repatriated bed days, which were designated as referral centre days. That amounts to 100 transitional or repatriated beds. The amount of money they're pouring into the new system is only $3.2 million, which will only allow for between 16 and 20 repatriated beds. Clearly, that statistic alone should tell you that the system isn't big enough.

The model that the community had agreed upon was a two-site acute care system: a hot site and a warm site. That took place after two and a half years of pretty intense negotiation, discussion, give and take on both sides. The entire community was involved in the process. Do you know what? Although it wasn't pleasing to everyone, it was a local solution that everybody bought into. The community was concerned that there be an option that everybody could buy into. We got it. Not everyone was happy, but it was a local solution to our local health care services.

This commission came in, didn't give that report the time of day, didn't listen to what the Minister of Health said when on January 17, in a letter to health care providers, he indicated his support by saying: "My ministry has already accepted the DHC recommendations regarding clinical programs, support services and sitings, as identified in the hospital services review report. Consideration of any other siting model is not acceptable." They didn't even listen to the minister. They didn't listen to the Premier when the Premier made a commitment to the Catholic community that he would protect the denominational religious factors of hospital health care. They didn't listen to that. More importantly, the commission obviously didn't listen to the community because 83% of the community say that there's going to be a deterioration of the system.

It's not only people who are politicians or teachers or lawyers. We're talking about doctors, nurses, lab technicians. We're talking about those providers of the services saying the system is too small. I ask you, in all honesty and in all good conscience, to support the resolution of the member for Sudbury East. It makes perfect sense.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of the House for my friend the member for Nickel Belt to explain why he closed 8,400 hospital beds in the last government.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Further debate?

Mr Laughren: It is certainly true that our government, between 1990 and 1995, for the first time brought health care spending under control. We did it in a rational, humane way, not the way this government is attempting to do it.

I must tell you that when I hear the Tory backbenchers saying that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing in health care, I wonder if they've talked to the member for Bruce. The member for Bruce could tell you a few stories about concern about health care in her riding. How many people were out to a meeting in Wiarton? Was it 3,000 people expressing concern about what you're doing to health care in that part of the province?

I mean, for the member for Huron to get up and say to the member for Sudbury East that our government did not make a commitment to Sudbury to reinvest savings is a complete fabrication, a complete and absolute fabrication, and then to say, "Here's what she said about Windsor," either the member for Huron doesn't know where Windsor and Sudbury are in the province or she's deliberately trying to mislead the House and the rest of the province who are watching into believing that --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to withdraw that remark about misleading the House, please.

Mr Laughren: I'll withdraw it even though it's not out of order the way I put it. I will withdraw in respect for the Chair.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: It's not out of order. You can rule all you like; it's not out of order. But I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. I did not rule that it was a point of order; I said that it was unparliamentary. I asked you to, and that's my reason. Thank you.

Mr Laughren: You are not going to cut into my time any more, Mr Speaker. I've had it with you.

I must say that for the member for Huron to say or to imply that no such commitment was made to Sudbury is fundamentally wrong. It's a fabrication. We have it in writing. We know. We were there and the Minister of Health assured the people in Sudbury that any savings achieved would be reinvested in the community. That's not what the present Minister of Health is saying.

That's not what the commission has the power to enforce. The commission only has the power to enforce the closures, not any kind of reinvestment in the community, not any kind of labour adjustment for people who will lose their jobs who work in those hospitals now. No such thing was forthcoming from the commission.

1130

For the member for Huron to stand in her place and say that all the members of the commission were experts in the health care field is a joke, an absolute joke. People are laughing at you when you make statements like that. Don't try to kid the troops any more that you're not dismantling the health care system in this province, because you surely are, and your backbenchers are hearing about it from their constituents. Ask the member for Bruce what she's hearing from her constituents in her constituency about what your intentions are. Talk to some of your backbenchers over there; they'll tell you.

And do you know what? For the first time since you were elected in June 1995, your policies are starting to hit the ground and hit people, and it's starting to come back and get at you. For the first time, that's what's happening.

The people in this province did not believe that they voted for a reform agenda in health care. They thought, when they heard Mike Harris say he would not cut a nickel from health care spending, that he was telling the truth. That's what the people of the province thought. They thought Mike Harris was telling the truth when he said there would not be a nickel cut from health care spending. Well, the people of this province are thinking that one through, I can tell you that, because they see what's happening all across this province in health care and they know you are dismantling the health care system as we've known it.

Nobody disagrees that there needs to be restructuring of the hospital system. Everyone agrees to that. I personally support some of the restructuring that's going on, but the way you're doing it really is grossly unfair. It is lacking in courage, because the minister won't stand up and say, "This is what we're doing." He looks at these appointed Tories on his commission and says, "Well, they decided to close the hospital, not me." What kind of joke is that?

Surely as political people in this province, you've got to have the courage of your convictions and stand up and say, "I've decided to close two hospitals in Sudbury," or "I've decided to close so many hospitals in Ottawa or in Toronto." No, no, that's not what you're doing. For heaven's sake, most of you are proud of your ideology. Why don't you stand up and wear it then? Instead of that, you hide behind a commission that you give authority to close hospitals. Why don't you do it yourself? Don't you have the courage of your own convictions? That's one thing I always thought Tories had. I might have some disagreements with you from time to time, but I always thought you had the courage of your convictions to stand up and state what you believed in and carried through on it. In this case, you're hiding behind a Tory-appointed commission.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the member for Sudbury East. This motion deals directly with the recently released Sudbury Health Services Restructuring Report. As the member will know, there is still a 30-day response period for public feedback on the report.

The Health Services Restructuring Commission is an arm's-length body, and in my opinion it would not be appropriate to discuss the specific recommendations for Sudbury. However, I would like to speak to the larger issue of restructuring within the health services field in the province of Ontario.

The resolution put forward by the member questions the government's commitment to health care services and promised reinvestments. As my colleagues have clearly stated both yesterday and today -- but it bears repeating -- there have been no provincial cuts to health care funding. Our government has committed to a level of health care spending that will not fall below $17.4 billion. With this year's health care budget at $17.7 billion, we've exceeded our commitment by some $300 million.

The resolution would have us believe that restructuring cannot possibly increase the quality of health care in the province, but we've heard over and over again that restructuring is necessary. The Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others are in agreement that restructuring is needed to ensure high-quality patient care.

This resolution is a call for maintaining the status quo, but we know the status quo is unacceptable. Under previous governments, approximately 8,400 beds were eliminated. That is the equivalent of 33 midsized hospitals. However, no wings or buildings were ever closed. We're still paying for the heat and hydro for those empty wings and buildings. As a result, high administration costs are not allowing dollars to flow directly to patient care.

With the introduction of the arm's-length Health Services Restructuring Commission, we've taken the politics out of health care. In the past, previous governments have recognized politics as an impediment to any restructuring efforts. In order to address this barrier to change, we appointed the Health Services Restructuring Commission to ensure that all aspects of health care in the regions are taken into account before any recommendations are made. In Sudbury, the consultation process is ongoing. Only after reviewing all relevant material did the commission issue a set of recommendations regarding the restructuring of local services. These recommendations pertain to the closure or creation of facilities, the need for reinvestments and anything else the commission deems will improve the quality of health care. As is currently under way in Sudbury, after the report is released, there's a 30-day period during which any member of the community or any organization, including affected hospitals, can forward their comments to the commission for consideration. Following this 30-day period, the commission considers all the feedback it's received and issues its final directives. At the end of the day, this is clearly a comprehensive, apolitical and productive process.

The resolution expresses concern for the impact restructuring will have on jobs, but ministry reinvestments in long-term care and community mental health are expected to create more than 4,400 new jobs for health professionals, including nurses.

This morning's resolution also criticizes the government for not reinvesting all the dollars saved from restructuring into the community on a dollar-for-dollar basis. If our goal is to create a province-wide health care system that provides seamless levels of care across all communities, then all communities must be able to share in the savings achieved.

The province's larger hospitals frequently serve patients who do not live in the surrounding community. For example, it's not unusual for patients from my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay to travel to Sudbury or other large centres for various sorts of special treatments. As a result, I have a direct interest in ensuring patients in my community will continue to enjoy the services provided by the current health care network.

Through this critical restructuring effort and numerous front-line reinvestments, my constituents are discovering that access to some lifesaving services is being brought closer to home. As an example, two weeks ago I had the pleasure to join with the member for Parry Sound to launch a new dialysis unit in my riding at the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital. The hospital will receive $429,000 annually for operating costs and $244,000 in a one-time fund for startup and training costs. In my community, this reinvestment means patients in the Muskoka-Parry Sound area will no longer have to make long trips to receive this life-giving treatment. Province-wide, the health minister has announced $25 million in expansion of dialysis services.

Earlier this week, the Premier and the Minister of Health also announced another reinvestment in the expansion of breast screening services in the province. In my riding, South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge was chosen as one of 11 new sites which will begin participating in the program for detecting breast cancer. For women in my area, this means improved access. It means doctors will be able to identify and treat breast cancer more quickly.

This $24.3-million reinvestment will mean an estimated 30 new screening programs for Ontario over the next four years. This reinvestment will see 325,000 more Ontario women being screened for breast cancer by the year 2000. That's an increase of 400% over the current capacity.

By restructuring, we're taking funding out of needless administration and costly overhead and reinvesting those resources into direct patient care. The dialysis and breast screening reinvestments are just two examples of expanded programs which are targeting health care funding into front-line, community-based patient care.

When we talk about restructuring, we're really talking about setting priorities. We're talking about providing the health services the people of the province feel they need and set as priorities. At the end of the day, restructuring is what is best for the health care of Ontarians. Restructuring will enhance patients' access to quality health care services and it will save and rejuvenate our system.

1140

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to participate in this debate today, although I must say that I really wish it wasn't necessary to have this motion before the House.

Health care is probably the most important item on the agenda of at least the people I represent. One of the things that I think all of us are asking in Algoma-Manitoulin, along the North Shore and in the rural north, is, where will we get services? Will the waiting lists be shorter? Will we be able to access quality health care in a timely fashion? As we look at this report, we're being asked to believe that 200 fewer acute care beds in Sudbury will be available for people who need them; 37% fewer. That is just totally unbelievable. No one could believe that a quality system can be maintained with 37% fewer beds.

To put it into perspective, that means we're going from 20 operating rooms presently in the city to 12. It means that the number of beds set aside for people from outside of Sudbury for procedures in Sudbury hospitals is dropping from about 100 to somewhere between 16 and 20, an 80% decrease in available beds for a population that needs to come to Sudbury for specialized services. How stupid does this government believe us to be? This cannot possibly happen.

The most offensive statement that we're hearing is: "This is not political. We're taking the politics out of health care." I want to tell you, I had the privilege of being down in health estimates and Mr Kells, the member from Etobicoke something or other, said to the minister, "but I did bring up the point that when you say you take the politics out of something, it's not enough to say you take it out when, after all, it is there." Mr Kells says it is there.

We all know it's there. We look at the commission, look at what's happening. We know that politics is in health care. We know that the Conservative government has broken every commitment it has made to the people of Ontario with respect to health care and it is partisan. You can't hide behind a commission that comes into Sudbury and other communities and says, "No, no, it's not us; it's somebody else." You just won't be believed. You might as well own up to it and say, "It's our plan; we're going to do it." Don't hide behind the commission.

I also wanted to bring out that I think for the rural north, in fact, for Sault Ste Marie and Timmins and North Bay and other large centres, there's something in this report that I think should cause us all concern. It is a recommendation hidden away on page -- it's recommendation number 14, advice to the Minister of Health. It says the minister will "Establish, in conjunction with the HSRC, by December 31, 1996, a planning committee comprised of representatives of the northeastern region of the province to do the following," listen to this:

"(a) Examine the options for integrated delivery system(s) in northeastern Ontario including a single governance model;

"(b) Evaluate the options and make recommendations by...June 30."

In other words, what this government wants to do is impose a regional health care system with one governance which affects every community in northeastern Ontario. It's found in a Sudbury report, not a Sault report, not a Timmins report, not a North Bay report, not a report about Manitoulin Island. It's found in a Sudbury report, hidden away on a back page. What they are going to do is bring the National Health Service of Great Britain to northern Ontario in the guise of a report from the commission that is only to deal with Sudbury. It is offensive. It is offensive to the people I represent. It will be offensive to everyone in northeastern Ontario that this is being snuck through.

The people I serve do not believe that this restructuring taking 37% out of the system is at all possible in order to achieve quality health care.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to say these few words.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In the time that I've got, I just want to go through this quickly and talk about how it relates to the city of Timmins and to the good people of Cochrane South.

I first want to remind people of something. In the last election, the government ran on something that was called the Common Sense Revolution. We remember it well. I want to take a look at specifically what page 7 had to say in the Common Sense Revolution. "We will not cut health care spending. It's far too important. And frankly, as we get older, we are going to need it more and more." They have failed on that promise. What have they done since they've come to office? They have cut funding to doctors, they've cut funding to hospitals, they've cut funding to long-term care, health care as a continuum has been cut day after day by the government, and they stand in this House and say they've got a commitment. They broke their most fundamental promise in the Common Sense Revolution.

Then they go on to say in the same document, "Every dollar we save by cutting overhead or by bringing in the best new management techniques and thinking, will be reinvested in health care." That's not what they're doing in Sudbury; that's not what they're going to be doing in Toronto; that's not what they're doing anywhere. They're taking the money that they cut in health care and they're doing what? They're using it to pay for their phoney tax scheme. That's what they're doing with the money they're taking from health care. It's to pay for the phoney tax scheme.

I want to tell you what it means to the people of Cochrane South. Here in Timmins, in Iroquois Falls and in Matheson, the people in that part of the province depend on Sudbury to refer patients who need assistance medically on to the Sudbury regional hospital system. Without that system, it means to say quite frankly that people are not going to be able to get in. We know that what you want to do in Sudbury is go from the current system of three hospitals, drop it down to one and cut 206 acute-care beds out of the system. What does that mean? It means to say that if you're in Schumacher, if you're in South Porcupine, if you're in Timmins, Matheson or Iroquois Falls and you need to get referred into Sudbury Memorial for a heart bypass, the list will get longer and longer and longer, to the point that you're not going to get in.

I listened to the debate earlier, and the members across the way said nothing happens, don't worry about it, everything's fine. I'm here to tell you not. We already have problems in the system. People up in my part of the province who are trying to get referred into Sudbury as it is are having a difficult time with what your government has done up to now, because of a number of issues concerning what's happening with doctors in this province, because of what's happening to hospitals in regard to their budgets last year with the 6% cut that you did, and in addition to other issues, it is getting more difficult for the people of my community to get referred into Sudbury Memorial for a heart bypass.

I want to tell you about one case alone: Richard Adams, a man who worked in Timmins for many years in the assessment office in the riding in Timiskaming. He started developing problems last spring. As of last spring, his doctor was trying to refer him in for bypass surgery at Sudbury Memorial. Normally, in cases like that, if you're acute and you need to get in, they find you a bed and you get your bypass. Sometimes it's difficult, even when we were government. In this case, June went by, July went by, August went by, he couldn't get in. Do you know where he is now? He's buried in a cemetery, because he died. He couldn't get into Sudbury because a bed wasn't available and now Beverley is a widow, sitting in Cobalt without her husband.

Why? Because this Conservative government is more intent on driving home a phoney tax scheme and funding it through cuts in the health care system, and they have the gall to come into this House and to say that somehow we're trying to play politics with the health care system. It ain't politics. This is real people. I'll tell you, there are more and more cases in my community where people are coming to my constituency office who are saying: "Gilles, I need to get referred into Sudbury. My family doctor or my specialist in Timmins wants to get me down for bypass surgery and I can't get in."

I have another case that I'm dealing with. The man's been waiting for three months and he can't get in. He's now been told it'll take another three months for him to get his bypass. Why? Because you as a government have seen fit to try to fund a phoney tax scheme on the backs of the hardworking men and women in this province so that you're going in and you're cutting the health care system. I say to you, shame, because what you're doing, you are destroying our health care system and quite frankly we've had it with you. You have to get to doing what you're supposed to do, which is to govern for the people of this province to make sure that we have access to universal, accessible health care. If you were to follow the report that Ruth had put through the district health council, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

1150

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity as well this morning to put some thoughts on the record about this very, very serious and important situation that's evolving in northern Ontario. Anybody who understands the north knows that we up there depend very much on an integrated system of health care, as in everything else. We can't, each community, provide to each other all that is necessary to make sure that the people who live and work in our areas have the best of health care, the health care they need, so we depend on places like Sudbury, Thunder Bay, the Sault and Timmins to have those services available when we need them so we can share with each other in times of crisis.

When budgets are cut there's sometimes a redistribution of resources and previous governments have been involved in that. But this present approach to health care in the north is just absolutely unbelievable and in the long run is going to wind up with some real calamities at the front door of this place, by way of example, and it will be squarely on the shoulders of Mike Harris and the Minister of Health when that happens.

In Sault Ste Marie, we have example after example of people, as the member for Cochrane South said, who are in need of the kind of services we access at the regional centre in Sudbury. The member for Sudbury suggested that 18% of the cases seen, particularly in cancer and cardiac, in the hospitals of Sudbury come from outside Sudbury and that is absolutely right. In Sault Ste Marie we are absolutely dependent on some of the services that are provided in Sudbury.

Health care in the north is one of the fundamentals to any future we are going to have in that part of Ontario that's so important to the whole of the province. If we don't have first-class health care, if we don't have access in a timely and efficient fashion, people are going to die and we're not going to be able to attract people up to our neck of the woods to do business or set up industry or work with us in the so many ways in which we're dependent on people to make sure our communities are viable and alive and well.

We have to look at this decision that's been made by this government in the context of that overall question of how we can maintain and improve the health of northern Ontario, of the people who live there. The decision that was made by this government, to reduce the number of beds in Sudbury from a level that was already difficult for us to access to the number we see today, is absolutely unworkable and will in the long haul result in longer and longer waiting lists and more and more people not getting the services they need, and probably in the long run our having to look at the possibility of having to send patients from northern Ontario to southern Ontario.

We still don't know what the decisions are going to be around what hospitals are going to be left after this restructuring committee comes through with its big swath and scythe in southern Ontario and cuts hospitals down here. We don't know yet what kind of impact that's going to have on the north and I don't know in particular what's going to happen in Sault Ste Marie.

I just want to share with you in closing an example of what in fact will happen. We had a man in Sault Ste Marie just recently, and there's a story in the Sault Star this week. It goes: "Waiting Lists for Heart Patients Grow Longer and Longer," and, "Widow Blames Health Cuts for Her Husband's Death."

"Norman Kuczenski died at the Plummer hospital after waiting almost 10 days for bypass surgery at Sudbury's Memorial Hospital....

"Mr Kuczenski's cardiologist, Dr David Gould, sees him as an example of what happens when a system is inadequately funded....

"Gould predicted that waiting lists will get even worse when Memorial closes and merges with Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury. That merger will see operating room times and beds become even more scarce."

So people are dying and more people are going to die.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this private member's motion today in regard to the Sudbury hospital restructuring. As members know, two weeks ago I brought up a question about a case, which was also referred to here in a previous speech from the member for Cochrane South, to the Minister of Health about a constituent of mine who died because he was not able to access heart surgery in a timely manner.

Quite frankly, I don't want to live in an Ontario where people are dying needlessly because they cannot access services. With the wealth we generate in this province, especially the wealth we generate in northern Ontario, there is no reason why citizens of northern Ontario are going to have to die because they're caught in lineups because they cannot access the medical care they need in a timely fashion. Richard Adams was one of many people who find themselves in this situation. Right now our cardiac heart surgery waiting list in northeastern Ontario at the Sudbury Memorial Hospital is 197 people.

The Minister of Health is saying that we are now going to close hundreds of beds in Sudbury and somehow the service is going to be better. I say to the minister and the parliamentary assistant, why don't you make the service better now? I'm not against restructuring, but show me how the service is going to be better.

It's not a funny matter, I say to some of the members who are laughing here. I'm talking about a constituent of mine who died. This man died at 46 years of age. That's not needed in Ontario, and it shouldn't be needed in Ontario. It's wrong, and this government should be doing something about it.

Get the services in place. We talk about community-based services; we talk about bricks and mortar; we talk about rationalization of service and restructuring. These are all wonderful catchwords that ministers and parliamentary assistants bandy about, but I've had a resident who has died because he could not access surgery in a timely manner.

On April 23 of this year, the doctor made the decision that Richard Adams should be put on the waiting list for heart surgery. He didn't get that until late in September, after a second heart attack, and died a day later. That should not happen in Ontario. I know it doesn't happen in Toronto. We've got to make sure that we have access to medical services in a timely manner.

The member for Sault Ste Marie just mentioned another of his constituents who was caught in the same situation. So we're saying to you, let's fix it, let's get the system fixed so that we don't have these waiting lists. Then we can start talking about how we can rationalize these services. But if we're not getting the people in a timely manner -- and let's face it, when you've had cardiac surgery, you don't kick the person out after 24 hours. You need to have an acute-care bed there so that the person can heal properly before they have to be sent home, remembering that being sent home might involve travel of at least 300 to 400 miles across northern Ontario. That person has to be in very good shape before you discharge them from the hospital.

We've got to take a close look at this. This isn't like rationalizing hospitals on University Avenue, when you've got five within three or four city blocks of each other. We've got 650,000 people right across northeastern Ontario who depend on the Sudbury hospital system for their services. Now to cut those beds allocated to those people outside the Sudbury region from 100 to about 16 or 18, an 82% decrease, is ludicrous.

I predict, unfortunately, that waiting list is going to grow. I predict, unfortunately, that we're going to have more deaths in northeastern Ontario because you're not doing a proper job, you're not restructuring properly and you're denying people timely access to the health care system. It's going to cost lives. I ask you today to re-examine that and make sure this doesn't happen, because the blood of those people is going to be on your head.

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

Ms Martel: I want to thank all the members for participating in the debate, but I want to focus my remarks upon the responses that were made by the member for Huron and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

I say to the member for Huron, with all due respect, I was the local member in Sudbury East at the time Minister Grier made a commitment that 100% of the savings that would come from restructuring in Sudbury would return to our community. I know the debate. I know the issue. I was the member and I still am. I really resent that in this House today you tried to portray that as not a commitment, not a promise, by making some kind of obscure reference to Windsor. Windsor is a 10-hour drive from Sudbury. I don't care what happened in Windsor. I care about the commitment that was made in my community by a former health minister, a commitment that your minister now does not want to guarantee.

The second point I want to make, with all due respect, to the people who are on the commission, who have been appointed by the minister, who are Conservatives, is that in my community there was a local process. People who work and live in my community, who understand the needs in my community, after two and a half years put together a compromise solution. It was accepted by the district health council. It went to your minister and it sat on his desk from October on. Now we have a solution that's going to be imposed by the handpicked commission and it does not reflect what came to be the compromise in my community. That's a shameful process.

With all due respect to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, you didn't promise in the Common Sense Revolution that health care spending would be maintained at $17.4 billion. You promised no cuts to health care. That's what people voted on. In my community, you have already cut $10 million from the hospital system this fiscal year. That comes directly as a result of the announcement made by this minister to cut $1.3 billion. There have been cuts, they're affecting people, the situation in Sudbury is going to get worse because of this solution that's being imposed and I encourage all of you to reject what the commission is going to do.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 41, standing in the name of Mr Crozier. If there are any members opposed to balloting on this, they will please rise.

Mr Crozier has moved second reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will deal with this after the next ballot item.

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal now with ballot item number 42, standing in the name of Ms Martel. If there are any members opposed to balloting on this item now, they will please rise.

All those in favour of the resolution please say "aye."

Those opposed to the resolution please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would the members please take their seats. Ballot item number 41, second reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, standing in the name of Mr Crozier. All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic	Froese, Tom	O'Toole, John
Arnott, Ted	Galt, Doug	Parker, John L.
Baird, John R.	Gerretsen, John	Pettit, Trevor
Barrett, Toby	Gilchrist, Steve	Pouliot, Gilles
Bartolucci, Rick	Grandmaître, Bernard	Pupatello, Sandra
Bassett, Isabel	Gravelle, Michael	Ramsay, David
Beaubien, Marcel	Grimmett, Bill	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Bisson, Gilles	Hardeman, Ernie	Ross, Lillian
Boyd, Marion	Hodgson, Chris	Runciman, Robert W.
Bradley, James J.	Hoy, Pat	Ruprecht, Tony
Brown, Michael A.	Johns, Helen	Saunderson, William
Caplan, Elinor	Johnson, Ron	Sergio, Mario
Carroll, Jack	Kells, Morley	Shea, Derwyn
Christopherson, David	Kennedy, Gerard	Sheehan, Frank
Chudleigh, Ted	Klees, Frank	Silipo, Tony
Churley, Marilyn	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Skarica, Toni
Clement, Tony	Lankin, Frances	Smith, Bruce
Colle, Mike	Laughren, Floyd	Snobelen, John
Cordiano, Joseph	Leach, Al	Sterling, Norman W.
Crozier, Bruce	Marland, Margaret	Stewart, R. Gary
Danford, Harry	Martel, Shelley	Tascona, Joseph N.
DeFaria, Carl	Martin, Tony	Tilson, David
Doyle, Ed	Martiniuk, Gerry	Turnbull, David
Ecker, Janet	Maves, Bart	Wildman, Bud
Elliott, Brenda	McGuinty, Dalton	Wilson, Jim
Eves, Ernie L.	McLeod, Lyn	Witmer, Elizabeth
Fisher, Barbara	Miclash, Frank	Wood, Bob
Flaherty, Jim	Morin, Gilles E.	Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Hastings, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 84; the nays are 1.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the bill carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to -- Mr Crozier.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I would respectfully ask that Bill 83 be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Is there a majority in favour? Those in favour of having this referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, please rise and remain standing.

There is a majority in favour. This bill will be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 42, standing in the name of Ms Martel. All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic	Crozier, Bruce	McGuinty, Dalton
Bartolucci, Rick	Gerretsen, John	McLeod, Lyn
Bisson, Gilles	Grandmaître, Bernard	Miclash, Frank
Boyd, Marion	Gravelle, Michael	Morin, Gilles E.
Bradley, James J.	Hoy, Pat	Pouliot, Gilles
Brown, Michael A.	Kennedy, Gerard	Pupatello, Sandra
Caplan, Elinor	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Ramsay, David
Christopherson, David	Lankin, Frances	Ruprecht, Tony
Churley, Marilyn	Laughren, Floyd	Sergio, Mario
Colle, Mike	Martel, Shelley	Silipo, Tony
Cordiano, Joseph	Martin, Tony	Wildman, Bud

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted	Gilchrist, Steve	Runciman, Robert W.
Baird, John R.	Grimmett, Bill	Saunderson, William
Barrett, Toby	Hardeman, Ernie	Shea, Derwyn
Bassett, Isabel	Hastings, John	Sheehan, Frank
Beaubien, Marcel	Hodgson, Chris	Skarica, Toni
Carroll, Jack	Johns, Helen	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Johnson, Ron	Snobelen, John
Clement, Tony	Kells, Morley	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	Klees, Frank	Stewart, R. Gary
DeFaria, Carl	Leach, Al	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Ecker, Janet	Martiniuk, Gerry	Turnbull, David
Elliott, Brenda	Maves, Bart	Wilson, Jim
Eves, Ernie L.	O'Toole, John	Witmer, Elizabeth
Fisher, Barbara	Parker, John L.	Wood, Bob
Flaherty, Jim	Pettit, Trevor	Young, Terence H.
Froese, Tom	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Galt, Doug	Ross, Lillian

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 52.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the resolution lost. It being a quarter after 12, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1216 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CREDIT UNION DAY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today to recognize the Ontario credit union system. Credit unions are financial service cooperatives owned and controlled in the community by the people they serve. Credit unions are community-based and community-focused. They play an integral role in local development by channelling members' savings back into the communities in which they operate as personal and business loans, mortgages and dividends paid on members' shares.

Ontario's credit unions and caisses populaires have accumulated $13.2 billion in assets and serve some 1.7 million members. Nationally the credit union and caisse populaire systems have $100.4 billion in assets and over 10 million members.

More than 3,000 Ontarians participate as volunteers on credit union boards and committees in communities across the province. Member credit unions of Credit Union Central of Ontario provide employment for about 4,000 people across the province.

Ontario's first credit union was established in 1908 in Ottawa. Most credit unions were established during the 1940s and 1950s in response to the need to provide affordable consumer credit.

To those members and volunteers of Ontario's credit unions, we applaud your effort and service.

TORONTO EAST DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have in my hand a report entitled Healing the Community, the report of the Jobs Ontario Community Action program and the Toronto East Downtown Residents' Association. Some 25,000 JOCA dollars have empowered and organized this community by giving it the tools to change its future, but this government cut the JOCA program, another action taken for ideological rather than logical reasons.

The Jobs Ontario Community Action grant allowed residents to develop a comprehensive database of their community. There's now a record of all community buildings, their uses, the businesses in the community as well as demographics and spending habits of the residents. This database is invaluable and will continue to be as it becomes updated in the future.

With these data in hand the Toronto East Downtown Residents' Association has been able to approach developers and make the case that their neighbourhood in downtown Toronto is worth investing in. The Toronto East Downtown Residents' Association is, in my view, to be complimented for the exceptional quality of the work it has done over the long year or two it has been in the process of working on this. It's unfortunate that I cannot say the same for the present government, which has cut the Jobs Ontario Community Action program.

SANDBANKS PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today to acknowledge the end of another successful tourist season at Sandbanks Provincial Park near Picton. Many of you may have visited Sandbanks, as 415,000 Ontarians did this summer. That represents a 2% increase in visitors over last year and a 9% revenue increase.

Most people come to enjoy the many kilometres of great beaches. Others come to climb North America's largest freshwater sand dunes, which were left behind by a retreat of the glaciers in 12,500 years of subsequent wind and erosion. Still others come to hike along the world's greatest freshwater bay mouth barrier.

I wish to congratulate employees of the park for another successful season of maintenance and preservation of the delicate ecosystem. The Sandbanks Provincial Park is a resource worthy of a visit by all Ontarians.

SOEURS DE LA CHARITÉ D'OTTAWA

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Dimanche dernier, j'ai assisté aux célébrations du 100^e anniversaire d'arrivée à Rockland des soeurs de la Charité d'Ottawa. Ce fut pour moi et pour plusieurs une excellente opportunité pour revoir des gens que je n'avais pas eu le plaisir de rencontrer depuis un certain temps.

Je veux profiter des quelques minutes à ma disposition pour offrir mes plus sincères félicitations et remerciements aux soeurs de la Charité d'Ottawa qui ont oeuvré au cours des 100 dernières années et qui sont toujours présentes au sein de la communauté de Rockland. Comme tous les autres citoyens de Rockland, j'ai été témoin au fil des ans du travail que les soeurs de la Charité ont accompli.

Au nom des citoyens de Rockland et de Prescott et Russell, je vous dis merci pour les bonnes oeuvres que vous avez réalisées et le bonheur que vous avez propagé au sein de la communauté de Rockland. Votre présence chez nous a marqué notre existence et nos vies spirituelles et j'espère que vous serez encore présentes parmi nous durant de longues années afin de poursuivre votre mission d'amour, de paix et de bienfaisance.

CREDIT UNION DAY

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I wish to join my distinguished colleague the member for Essex South in expressing my pleasure indeed in informing the House that today is Credit Union Day in Ontario. Today across Ontario and Canada, credit union members, volunteers and staff are joining together to celebrate the credit union movement and the cooperative philosophy upon which it is based. This year, tying in with National Co-op Week and its team, picture the possibilities.

Credit unions can reflect on their past accomplishments and can look forward to a bright future in the highly competitive financial services industry. You will recall that new legislation introduced last year, 1995, by the previous government, that of the New Democratic Party, allowed the credit unions to level the playing field to give them a competitive equivalent in the marketplace.

Today most credit unions offer their members a full range of financial services, from personal accounts to mortgages and small business loans. We're talking in terms of 1.7 million members across Ontario and no less than $13.5 billion. Therefore I would extend our best wishes and also convey the best wishes of all the members present.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I am pleased to inform the House that Commercial Alcohols Inc has begun construction on a world-class ethanol plant in Chatham. This $153-million plant, which will be fully operational next winter, will produce about 150 million litres of ethanol and industrial alcohol per year. Operating around the clock, 365 days a year, this facility will have an annual economic impact of approximately $100 million.

In addition to the hundreds of jobs generated during the construction phase, about 400 full-time direct and indirect jobs will be created when the plant becomes operational. As well as ethanol, a substantial amount of compressed carbon dioxide will be produced and handled by Praxair at a companion facility. In addition, 127,000 tonnes a year of high-protein animal feed will also be produced.

The completion of this facility in Chatham will provide a much-needed source of a renewable fuel and an expanded market for 15 million bushels of corn grown in Kent county and other parts of Ontario.

This is a great example of community, government and business working together. Construction of the Commercial Alcohols plant is further indication that all of Ontario, and especially Kent county, is open for business.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO TIMMINS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Premier Harris and his Minister of Northern Development and Mines will be travelling to Timmins tomorrow for what can be termed, at best, a public relations exercise. For more than a year, the members of the Liberal northern caucus have been calling upon the Premier and the minister to stop the dismantling of northern communities. Premier Harris and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines have much to answer for when they take their public relations trip to Timmins tomorrow.

1340

Northern residents want to know why this government has cut education and health care funding in the north, this resulting in the closure of five of our northern hospitals. They want to know why the Harris government has destroyed both the Ministry of Northern Development and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Northern residents want to know why this government continues to download its responsibilities to northern municipalities and why the Harris revolutionaries have closed family support offices throughout the north, and again, why they have reduced our winter road maintenance.

Mr Premier, as you will know, the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce have called upon you and your Minister of Northern Development to establish an office for a Deputy Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Natural Resources in northwestern Ontario. I do hope that these members do not have to pay $150 a plate just to come and see you when you travel to Timmins tomorrow.

I say to you that your record in northern Ontario, to say the least, is dismal. You and your government have much to answer for in the north and this public relations trip tomorrow just won't cut it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yet again we see the Tory caucus machine, the Tory Party machine working in full splendour. While people in northern Ontario have been trying to get the ear of the Premier and also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for months now, we find that mayors such as Steve Butland and Vic Power are having a hard time trying to get access to the Premier. What are they doing? How do they get access to the Premier in northern Ontario? They've got to pay $150 to get to a Tory fund-raiser to get the ear of the Premier.

To the Tories, I say shame. The job of the Premier is supposed to be a job where you are accessible to the mayors across Ontario, to the citizens across Ontario, so people can have their say with the Premier and make sure their views can be heard. While this fund-raiser is going on, there will be literally hundreds of people outside the Senator hotel in Timmins today who will be saying to the Premier: "We don't like what you're doing in northern Ontario. In fact, we oppose what you're doing in northern Ontario because we believe that in the end this agenda will do nothing but harm not only the north but Ontario in general."

I would like to read just one excerpt from an editorial that appeared in the Timmins Daily Press today, the fine newspaper that it is. It says: "Those on the `corporatist' side will pay $150 to dine with the provincial Premier in completely friendly surroundings and those opposed can stand with their peers" and be left feeling --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

CREDIT UNION DAY

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to join my colleagues from Essex South and Lake Nipigon in informing the House that Ontario's credit unions are today celebrating Credit Union Day as part of National Co-op Week.

As financial services co-ops, credit unions are owned by the people they serve. Their decisions are made locally. With more than 1.1 million members and $8.5 billion in assets, Ontario's credit unions help local economies by channelling members' savings back into their communities as personal and business loans, mortgages and dividends paid on members' shares.

Credit unions know their communities and play an integral role in supporting small businesses, which create jobs. In some communities, the credit union is the only financial institution. The credit union approach is a model of self-reliance. It's an example of the wonderful things people can accomplish by working together to solve their own problems.

Ontario credit unions sponsor community activities, initiate public education programs on financial matters and promote local economic development.

To raise awareness of credit unions and their benefits, credit union members, volunteers and staff are today holding open houses and other events across the province. I encourage Ontarians to visit their local credit unions to learn more about their unique contribution to the province's communities.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): In the Common Sense Revolution we promised to streamline government and get rid of overlap and duplication, and with the help of the Who Does What panel we're delivering today on that promise.

Since they began their work four months ago, they've made recommendations on property tax assessment, emergency services and environmental approvals.

I've also had recommendations on municipal reform from the panel. As with all their recommendations, they point the way to a fundamental change in the way the province and local governments work together, to lower overall costs for the taxpayers, to the elimination and duplication of over-regulation, to a division of responsibilities that makes sense. The goal is smaller, more efficient and affordable governments at all levels.

This afternoon we're introducing legislation to give municipalities more authority and greater flexibility to govern and to deliver services effectively. A major part of the bill is a new Municipal Elections Act. The current system is broken. Recounts can last almost as long as the electoral term. There are still outstanding recount issues related to the 1994 municipal elections. This does not serve taxpayers well. This is not common sense.

We want to make it easier for people to exercise their democratic right to vote, so we're opening the door to new ways of voting. People who can't make it to the polls may be able to vote by mail, for example, and municipalities will be able to open the polls earlier, if they so choose, so people may vote on their way to work in the morning.

One of the Who Does What panel recommendations was that we move the municipal election day to the middle of October. That's an excellent idea, but right at this point in time many municipalities are now working to restructure before the next elections. An earlier election would only give them less time and make that job more difficult. I'll certainly be considering changing the date before the elections in the year 2000.

We're also protecting people's privacy and security. Voters' lists will no longer be publicly posted on streets.

We're putting in place a faster process, shortening the election period and reducing the number of forms required from 40 to five.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): David Crombie is out of control.

Hon Mr Leach: I thank the member for St Catharines for his support.

In all of these areas, we're taking into account the specific need of local communities. We understand that the problems of Toronto are not the same as those in Dysart township. Our goal is to protect the integrity of the municipal elections, ensuring a proper democratic process while making it more efficient, more accessible, less wasteful and less costly.

We're not just changing the election process; we're making other changes as well. We're making it easier for municipalities to reduce council size, for example, so there should be fewer local politicians.

We're enhancing municipal authority to get the most from their cash management while still protecting taxpayers' money.

The rules on municipal investments have changed little since the 1840s, but the financial world has. Municipalities will be held to a standard even more stringent than trustees and they will not be permitted to put the taxpayers' money at risk.

We're also introducing legislation this afternoon to help cut local transportation costs. It begins to implement the Ministry of Transportation's community transportation action program and it represents a first step in helping communities coordinate and restructure local transportation services.

All of these changes will be in place for the 1997 municipal elections. This legislation is only a start. The Who Does What panel has also recommended a fundamental rewrite of the Municipal Act, and we hope to introduce legislation along these lines in the spring.

By the beginning of 1998 we'll be able to point to a new public sector -- one that's smaller, one that's more streamlined, one that's more cost-effective. The division of responsibility for services will be clear. Taxpayers will know who is making spending decisions.

The laws that guide local government activities will be streamlined. Provincial regulations will be cut back. Ultimately, we will save taxpayers' money by reducing overlap without compromising the quality of services they receive.

As I said, in the Common Sense Revolution we promised to streamline government and get rid of overlap and duplication. With the help of the Who Does What panel, we are now delivering on that promise.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): What's of great interest, of course, with respect to the Who Does What panel is that the people of Ontario aren't as interested in who does what but who's paying for what. That's the bottom line. What this bill is really talking about is the continuation of your downloading on municipalities the cost of services you're no longer willing to pay for. You know as well as I do, Mr Minister, that what this is really all about is the fact that in another year or two you're going to be completely out of the grant business to municipalities at all. So when you're talking about making more efficient government and making smaller government etc, that's just a whole bunch of gobbledegook.

1350

It's kind of interesting that you spent almost half a page talking about when the election day will be held next year and how people can vote and where the voters' lists will be maintained, but you only have one line on the notion that the goal is smaller, more efficient and affordable government. Mr Minister, tell that to the municipalities that are currently involved in the restructuring processes, where in some cases you've gone from 25 municipalities to four municipalities on your theory that bigger is better is cheaper. We all know that it ain't necessarily so. We've got examples in the past, and regional governments are probably the best examples, where as a result of these kinds of downsizings, these kinds of restructurings, in effect government at the local level costs a lot more that it ever did before.

Mr Minister, I think the other thing we have to keep in mind is your track record with respect to the kind of legislation you've brought forward before. We will be taking a very close look at this bill because you may recall in Bill 26 you made a number of comments in the House here as to the powers that municipalities had. When some municipalities came forward and said, "Yes, we do have the power to levy gas taxes; yes, we do have the power to levy sales taxes etc," you immediately denied it based on the best legal advice that you can get, and eventually, of course, we all realized and know what happened. What happened was that you had to bring in amendments to make certain that those kind of taxes you had said in the House could be imposed couldn't be imposed. So we're going to take a very close look at this legislation to make sure that what you're saying it can do, it can actually do, and I doubt that very much, taking your past record into account.

I think it's also very interesting that you were the person who stated at an AMO conference recently that some municipalities are already getting into the budgeting process whereby they basically are not going to rely on any government grants, and this piece of legislation is perfectly in line with that.

The changes you're making with respect to the transportation situation, which will allow municipalities to get involved with the private sector, are again only about one thing and that's the fact that sooner or later -- because you've already made the statement with respect to GO Transit, or at least the Minister of Transportation has made it -- municipalities will have to absorb a larger cost of the transportation costs. I'm quite sure that the same thing is going to happen with respect to the municipal transit systems.

It's very interesting that you should state that there haven't been any changes made with respect to the municipal investments that municipalities can invest in since the 1840s. What you don't say, and what I understand to be in the legislation, is that in effect you're going to give municipalities much greater borrowing capacity and borrowing power. Why do they need that borrowing power? Well, it's quite obvious why. If you're going to cut off their grants, municipalities, in order to exist and in order to give the kind of services that their taxpayers have relied on and depended on, will be required to borrow money and that's really what's behind this whole notion.

What's behind it is the fact that they will need those powers because you're cutting off their grants and their subsidies and they will now have to be able to raise that money through other methods. So don't make it sound as if you're doing them a big favour. What they've always said to you, Mr Minister, not only this past year but over the last 20 years, is, give us more power but also give us the resources to go along with it. What you have basically done in just about every piece of legislation that you have brought forward is you've cut off their sources of funding. Yes, you're giving them more powers in certain areas, but you've cut off their funding at the same time and you've made it extremely difficult for municipalities to exist.

Mr Minister, we will be watching this legislation very closely, we will be studying it closely, because we're quite sure that once again you'll have to bring in major amendments to cover up some of the shortcomings you've announced here today.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to try in three or four minutes to be as positive as I can with the suggestions that have come forth from this minister, and there are a number of positive things here. The elimination, for example, of the posting of the voters' list is a useful thing. I think a number of people have talked about privacy matters and eliminating that list. Posting it on various posts was a problem for many voters. Having to do away with that is a very useful thing, so we congratulate the minister on that useful proposal.

On the whole matter of recounts, we've had some problems in the past, as he and you, Mr Speaker, know. I think the way this is being dealt with -- it goes prior to what we had in 1988 -- may address some of those costly matters dealing with recounts. Now it will happen, based on a tie, where council determines it's in the public interest and/or individuals have an opportunity to go to the courts. I think it's a simpler way of dealing with this issue and it deals with problems that people have raised.

On the whole matter of giving people an alternative way of voting, it's interesting. It will bring the ways that people can vote up to the 21st century, where a number of people will be allowed to vote through the Internet, I am told, and through a touch screen, I am told. All of that is interesting and I find it very useful. On the other hand, I'm not sure how we are going to monitor that or whether we're going to get into greater confusion as we modernize in the future. But it's an interesting thing that the minister is getting involved in.

On the whole issue of refundable money that goes to candidates, what they've added here is that all of that will be based on the percentage of vote, and that will be determined by regulation. I'm a bit concerned about why we're leaving that to regulation and why we're not determining that clearly in the beginning so people know and understand the system. I'm a bit concerned about what you've done there, Minister, and I would urge you to review that, because I think everybody should know in advance and we shouldn't be leaving it to either you or some civil servants to determine what that percentage of vote should be.

What you've also allowed here is referendums, where you will allow utilities and boards of education, and municipalities for that matter, to be able to have a referendum now at any time and not just during an election. Interesting. I suppose that will allow for greater democracy to occur, but I, quite frankly, am worried. This will have very costly implications because, as we know, every referendum that we have is very costly. It could have some interesting adverse effects as people decide and determine what kind of referendum they will have on what issues. I'm very fascinated and look forward with interest to the possibilities of this, both in terms of cost and in terms of some regressive things that can happen in communities.

But all of these, again, are harmless, useful suggestions that I think we should be looking at. I'm not sure what benefits they will have one way or the other, but I think some of them needed to have been done. Giving municipalities the latitude --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, please. Could the government members please take their seats. It's very difficult to hear the response. It's very difficult to hear because of the din of the conversation. If you want to have a conversation, go outside. Clearly it's very difficult for a speaker to respond to the minister if a whole bunch of people are standing in front of the benches. The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: Thank you kindly, Mr Speaker.

The real issue, however, quite connected to this -- and the minister speaks to it very briefly when he says, "The system is broken." The comment I have to this is that the minister has helped to break the system. The system wasn't as bad as once he and his government have made the 40% cuts over two years to municipalities. That's when they finally broke the system, and that's really a diversion. This is a diversion from the real downloading that has happened to municipalities and a real diversion from the cost that municipalities now have had to bear.

That's the real issue. This is where the system is broken and this is where municipalities are now worried about their ability to be able to deliver the child care programs that are within their jurisdiction; to be able to deliver the programs regarding transportation for the disabled, which they have cut; to deliver on the budgets that police services boards had, which have been cut indirectly. These are the real issues that need to be dealt with and this is where the downloading has happened that has hurt and broken the backs of municipalities.

What the minister has proposed in this recommendation that he presents today is all right, it's useful, it fixes some things, but it doesn't fix the fundamental problems that he has caused with the funding cuts over a two-year period of 40%. That's real magnitude of cost cuts, that's the problem.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. We over here are starting to ask ourselves if anybody over there is prepared to stand up for the environment and, by so doing, the health of Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't think they actually heard who the question was to. I don't necessarily believe it's your fault. I would ask the government members to come to order, please. It's very difficult to hear the questions.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Your latest blow to the environment is found in your decision to privatize the Ontario Clean Water Agency. You tell us the sale will yield big dollars for the government, but you ignore the fact that this agency, once privatized, will at times have to choose between ensuring the safety and security of our water supply and the demands of shareholders. In short, this privatization will threaten our health.

Minister, tell me that you were merely musing aloud, and that having fully considered this privatization issue you have decided that it's not in the public interest because it would place the health of Ontarians at risk.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I believe that we should look at the privatization of this agency because already in the province of Ontario many municipalities are choosing private operators to operate their water plants, their sewage plants, and those kinds of things. It's my belief that can be done as long as the municipality is still in full control. The province will be still setting the standards, will be still ensuring that the people of Ontario have a safe, clean, reliable water source. The whole concept of this particular agency, which was split off by the previous government into a corporate entity, was to give it more flexibility in what it might or might not do.

I think, quite frankly that there is a significant benefit at looking at this in a reasonable light in terms of what we are doing, and that in no way is the drinking water or the environmental standards of the province compromised by looking at this particular option.

Mr McGuinty: I'm a little bit confused because yesterday you were quoted as saying this was a sure thing, it was going ahead, and today you tell me that you're merely considering it.

I want to move you along to another health problem that you're creating for Ontarians. You are proposing to change the regulation that limits the amount of sulphur found in the heating oil used by Metro houses and businesses. In fact, you want to double the sulphur content. This means that our heating oil will be twice as dirty and it will obviously create more health problems in Toronto, which holds the dubious distinction of being Canada's smog capital.

Yesterday you said: "We lose 1,800 Ontarians a year prematurely due to poor-quality air in the province, and I am going to fight with every bone in my body to get that number down."

Minister, will you now withdraw this proposed regulation change because you clearly understand it's going to be harmful to our health?

Hon Mr Sterling: This is hardly a supplementary question to the first question but, notwithstanding that, this particular proposal under the regulatory review that we're doing -- the idea here is to pay attention to what is coming out of the smokestack, so to speak, rather than what goes into the particular furnace, boiler, or whatever is involved in producing the smoke or the emission at the end. My particular bent is to try to control what comes out and not be so concerned with what goes in.

Nothwithstanding that, I have said that in no way will I compromise the standards that are produced at this time which affect the outcome with regard to the SO₂ emissions. Therefore, in the end we will have stricter standards than are presently on the books.

Mr McGuinty: What I'm trying to make the minister understand is that he has tremendous influence over the health that we in this province enjoy.

I want to speak to him now about another issue, but it's all connected with health and the environment, and that's about your new plans for disposal of garbage in Ontario. In opposition, your Premier made the very sound argument that we ought to consider all options for disposal of waste and that any option must be subject to a full environmental assessment, but your new rules will not require that in every case large dumps, or even incinerators, be made subject to a full environmental assessment. This means that Ontarians will get less than the best waste disposal methods and that consequently we're going to get less than the best protection of our health from the waste we produce. I want to give you this opportunity to change your mind and assure us that Ontario dumps will always be subject to full environmental assessment hearings.

Hon Mr Sterling: Under the present legislation the Minister of Environment has the choice as to whether anything has an environmental assessment. Under the new act we are passing we will be giving waste disposal sites full environmental assessment. I don't see what has changed.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My second question is for the Minister of Transportation. This morning my staff spoke with a young woman by the name of Linda Concellier. She is 24 years of age. She's a bright university grad and she's looking for work. Linda has cerebral palsy and her condition requires that she walk with crutches because she suffers from very bad balance. Linda has been deemed ineligible for Wheel-Trans services. Her appeal has also been rejected, and this notwithstanding that her doctor sent a letter stating that it is very unsafe for her to use conventional transit. Can you tell Linda how she is supposed to get around now that your cuts have taken away the Wheel-Trans service she needs to live as a contributing member of her community?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I'm very concerned that the mobility and accessibility needs of the people of Ontario are met and I can assure the honourable member that this province, this government, has not cut Wheel-Trans. That is purely the responsibility of the municipalities. We've been saying that all along. We proved it last year. We did not cut the funding. As a matter of fact, we made sure that the funding levels this year were exactly the same as last year, and those were levels that were not cut. These are criteria that the municipalities presently are addressing. It's not the Harris government that's cutting Wheel-Trans. Not one dollar did we take out of Wheel-Trans.

Mr McGuinty: You should know that the line the government has been feeding us, one where the government is washing its hands completely of the impact of its cuts, is wearing pretty thin. The fact of the matter is that the people of Ontario know that it's this government that's behind larger classes, hospital closures, user fees and cuts to Wheel-Trans.

Linda wants to get to work. She's getting social assistance and she wants to get off it, but she can't even get to her job interviews. In your Common Sense Revolution you promise, "Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut." The fact is that aid has been cut, and to date you've done nothing to change that fact. What specific action are you going to take to help Linda and thousands of others like her who are suffering from your cuts to Wheel-Trans?

Hon Mr Palladini: In the initial question from the honourable member, I don't believe I heard which municipality he might have been referring to that this young lady is dealing with.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Hamilton East, come to order.

Hon Mr Palladini: However, I want to say that in Metro the Toronto Transit Commission chose to do a study, actually spending somewhere in the vicinity of $500,000 or $600,000, to see what criteria would be sufficient or needed to deliver the services Wheel-Trans delivers. I only have to say to those people that they should be putting their money back into Wheel-Trans.

I want to say one other thing very clearly: Other municipalities around the province of Ontario are very adequately delivering those services with the funds they are being provided. When you talk about delivering of services at $45 a ride versus $22 a ride, I don't believe the Harris government has cut $1 out of Wheel-Trans.

1410

Mr McGuinty: One of the questions we've got to ask ourselves is, what kind of assistance do we ultimately want to provide to our disabled in this province? That responsibility ultimately lies with this government and not with municipalities. This government can't continue, you simply can't continue to try to establish some distance between yourselves and the effects of the cuts on real people. Whether it's special education, larger class sizes or individuals like Linda being trapped in their apartment, the government's standard response is the same: "We're not to blame." Passing the buck doesn't do anything to change the situation. The fact is that your cuts are hurting people like Linda.

The other day we heard of hundreds of kidney dialysis patients and others with hidden disabilities who have also been cut off Wheel-Trans. Without Wheel-Trans, Linda and many others have no way to fulfil some of their most basic needs. Above all, they can't help themselves or their community. Will you show some compassion and honour your promise made in the Common Sense Revolution? Will you restore the funding you've taken from the Wheel-Trans budget?

Hon Mr Palladini: I would just like to say to the honourable member that he is not the only one who has compassion. I believe this government has compassion. I believe this government wants to make sure there is a future for all our children and their children.

Interjection.

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

Hon Mr Palladini: It's a government that does care. It's a government that is looking for better ways to deliver services. That is one of the reasons we are looking at introducing the community transportation system. The community transportation action program, CTAP, is going to be something that will help municipalities take advantage of the resources they have, take advantage of the equipment they presently have. These are the things that we must do as a government: work with municipalities and help them deliver the services to more people in a more cost-efficient way. Yes, we do have compassion.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm to the Legislature that the Ontario health insurance plan has reached a deal with Grace and Hutzel hospitals in Detroit to provide obstetrical and prenatal care to Canadian women?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I can't confirm that for you at this moment; I'd have to check with staff. Certainly we're having discussions, as part of contingency planning, with a number of institutions throughout the province and in the border areas, with the United States and other jurisdictions.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): He spoke to them yesterday, as early as two days ago.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Windsor-Sandwich, please.

Mr Cooke: The fact of the matter is that doctors at these hospitals have talked to our constituency offices and we've confirmed this with the Ontario health insurance plan, the individual who negotiated the agreement. How can the minister justify the additional cost of $7,000 to $10,000 per patient --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the Minister of Health to withdraw that comment please.

Hon Mr Wilson: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Cooke: How can the minister justify the additional $7,000 to $10,000 per patient when the time that was spent to negotiate this agreement should have been spent at the bargaining table trying to negotiate an agreement with doctors in Ontario so that the taxpayers didn't get ripped off and so that the dollars needed in our health care system stayed in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: We're doing exactly what the honourable member suggests. There are ongoing discussions, serious negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association. They've been going on for several days, quite frequent meetings between the parties. I am very hopeful that we'll never have to use our contingency plans, but it is prudent for the Minister of Health to prepare to ensure that services are available to the people of Ontario should there be a withdrawal or partial withdrawal of services from our physicians in Ontario. But I repeat, I fully expect we won't ever have to use the contingency plans.

Mr Cooke: The minister said in the spring that he didn't think we'd even need to develop contingency plans, and here we are nearly at the point where we're going to have a province-wide strike. I think the taxpayers are owed an explanation from the minister today. Can the minister confirm that all of the money that will be spent on this agreement is over and above the $3.8-billion envelope for doctors' services in this province? Can the minister also tell us how this is going to provide a long-term solution for women who need prenatal and obstetrical care in this province?

Hon Mr Wilson: It's exactly this type of muckraking that really upsets the doctors in this province. It really, really upsets them when the opposition or others start to concoct these what-if scenarios.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, come to order.

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm not going to participate in that. We're having serious negotiations with Ontario's doctors. We're going to come to a conclusion in those negotiations that I am very hopeful will satisfy and deal with the frustrations they've had for a number of years, all the time that you were in office, all the time that the Liberals were in office. We're going to come to satisfactory conclusions to a number of the concerns that are being expressed. That's the confidence I have in the negotiating parties. We should give that process a full chance before you start fearmongering and upsetting the doctors in the province, which is exactly what this type of questioning leads to: upset doctors. They don't deserve it.

The Speaker: New question, the third party. The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): That's a funny response. Sorry, Minister. If anyone is getting them angry, it is you.

The Speaker: Who's your question to?

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to return to the question of Central Eglinton Children's Centre and the three other centres in Toronto which we are on the verge of losing. Minister, I know you know the background, so I don't want to go into the background. What I want to say to you is that these centres have only got a very short period of time to deal with the question of whether or not the schools, as they are being redesigned for a rebuild, will include a child care centre. In fact, in the case of Central Eglinton, we've got about a one-month window.

I've listened very carefully to your responses. I know that you are in fact consulting, as you say, on the $600-million envelope and how you're going to reform child care. I understand that.

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

Ms Lankin: I understand that you're going to be looking at what role capital plays in that. In this case, we can't wait. You have 40 million new dollars which are unallocated this year, of operating dollars. Minister, would you please consider the possibility of converting $1.6 million of that in capital to deal with this immediate crisis of these four centres? I'm just asking you if you today would give us a commitment to consider that.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the member's concern for these child care centres, and I know the parents and those who are involved with this centre are very, very concerned. I would be quite happy to go back to the regional office and see if we have any other options that we may be able to assist them with. As you know, capital funding is part of the decision that will be happening under the child care review, so I don't know what could possibly be committed at this time. But I would be quite happy to go back to the regional office and see if there are any other alternatives that we could explore.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much, Minister. That is a very important first step and very good news for the parents and this centre. If this will be of some help to you, I want to point out a precedent that your office has already established in this area, and that's with respect to Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute and the Red Apple Day Care. You know this has been raised as an example.

In your letter to the Toronto board, you say that while the ministry provided funds to complete interior renovations, costs of land and construction of Red Apple were borne by the school board. That's incorrect. I want to give you this information so that you can check this through with your regional office. In fact, Red Apple is in a school that was being totally renovated and redesigned, and the child care space would have been eliminated. It was $380,000 from Comsoc that allowed that centre to be built into the new, redesigned, renovated school. They needed your money, as do the people at Central Eglinton and the other three centres.

The Speaker: The question, please.

Ms Lankin: It was not, as you had indicated, for health and safety reasons, and the East York board did not pay the costs of construction. Minister, this is a good example. Will you, as you are reconsidering, look at Marc Garneau and Red Apple, see the parallel there and, if you agree with me that this is a precedent, take a look at that model of funding from Comsoc to support these four other schools?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As I said, I'd be quite happy to consider any information that may assist in our looking at if there are other alternatives, but I would also like to remind the honourable member that one of the reasons we as a government implemented requests for business cases before we gave out capital money last year, one of the reasons we believe that capital expenditures under child care need to be reviewed so carefully, is because of things that the Provincial Auditor said earlier this week, where we had circumstances where almost $1 million of taxpayers' money was spent on a child care facility without proper controls, without proper checks and balances to ensure that that money was indeed being spent in the best way. I'm sure the honourable member would agree with me that I think we have to be very cautious in how we use taxpayers' money to make sure that it is indeed being used appropriately.

1420

Ms Lankin: Thank you, Minister. I do agree with --

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to find out from you whether you could instruct the Minister of Community and Social Services to tell us just when she'll go back to her regional offices.

The Speaker: It's not a point of order. Final supplementary.

Ms Lankin: Minister, I do agree with you. I'm very pleased by the constructive approach that you're taking on this. I'm sure the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism and the Minister of Municipal Affairs are equally pleased, as two of the centres are in their ridings.

Lastly, Minister, I want to say to you that a number of people have been here listening to your answer in the gallery: Alisa Humber, who is the assistant director of the Central Eglinton Children's Centre, and Judith Russelstone, Zelia Furtado, Christine Osti and Maryann Nolan, who are parents, are here.

Minister, they, the parents from the three other schools in Toronto and the Toronto School Board have been asking for a meeting with you in order to explore these issues. As I've said, we've only got a window of about one month to deal with this. We need you to commit to meet with the Toronto school board and these parents on this issue. I understand you're going to review this and go back to the regional office. What I would ask from you today is for a commitment that you will agree to meet with the Toronto board officials and the parents of these four centres.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Either I or my officials would be quite happy to meet with them.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'll take the opportunity to mention that in the government gallery is the ex-member for Scarborough Centre, Bill Davis.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question to the Minister of Transportation: The Provincial Auditor in his report released the other day asked how your ministry, through the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, can justify awarding new contracts for the operation and maintenance of the Highway 407 project without competition, without public tender.

Minister, these contracts are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are going to go to the same consortium that has already been given a $1-billion sweetheart deal to build a toll highway. This is pure and simple highway robbery. Why should this 407 consortium continue to get additional multimillion-dollar contracts? On top of the $1 billion, now you're giving them new contracts for building, maintenance and operation of the highway. Why is it not going to public tender?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): First of all, I recognize the importance of the Provincial Auditor's report. As a matter of fact, a lot of credence has been given it. Even in last year's, as you'll recall, the Provincial Auditor reported that 60% of highway infrastructure was badly in need of repair. This government invested $110 million more than the previous 10 governments. But as far as the Provincial Auditor's report, it was a contract that was signed by the previous government. We have not reissued any new contract. There is absolutely nothing new about the old contract signed by the previous government. I wish the member would recognize that.

Mr Colle: I think I would believe the auditor to be correct when the auditor states categorically on page 241, "...why a company owned by the winning consortium should be awarded the operations, maintenance and management contracts without competition." You know, Minister, that that original contract was torn apart and the public was basically on the line for $1 billion. New rules were written and the contract was unbundled, yet you still continue to offer untendered contracts without competition that could be worth up to $500 million. Produce these contracts, then, Mr Minister, for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation. Let's see the contracts, but make sure they are going out to competition.

Hon Mr Palladini: There is no new contract. The previous government signed a contract with a consortium to design, build and maintain the highway. It was part of the original contract.

Mr Colle: Maintenance wasn't part of that.

Hon Mr Palladini: Yes, it was. Maintenance was part of the original contract. If we were to make any attempts at all to break this contract, we'd be liable for a lawsuit.

Mr Colle: You're signing new ones.

Hon Mr Palladini: We're basically following through on what the previous government put on paper.

One point I want to make very clear is that we are not paying any more money for the highway than was originally contracted. The $927 million is still the price of delivery of the contract. As far as maintenance is concerned, it was part of the original contract.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. You know that today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Ironically this date comes only a few weeks after the first anniversary of your 22% cuts to welfare rates for children, families and people with disabilities across the province.

You know that Ontario, as a signatory together with Canada and the other provinces, is held accountable, through the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on progress that we are making towards the eradication of poverty in this province. One of the main concerns that the committee has expressed is the fact that the usage of food banks has increased rather than decreased in jurisdictions in Canada, and certainly in Ontario. We see that very clearly set out for us in a report released only some days ago from the Ontario Social Safety Network, which talks about people from London to Toronto to other places across the province having to rely more gravely on food banks.

My question to you, Minister, is simply this: How are you going to account to the United Nations committee on the lack of progress you are making towards eradicating poverty in this province?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): To the honourable member, I think the United Nations does us all proud in terms of highlighting what is a very important goal, the eradication of child poverty. I feel quite comfortable in going to the United Nations and telling them about our investments in child care, community health supports, child nutrition, healthy babies and our investing in workfare to get people off social assistance, because I believe the best kind of social assistance system is a job. I feel quite confident that our job creation and all those other investments will convince the United Nations that we are indeed making progress in Ontario.

Mr Silipo: That kind of answer just isn't going to wash with me and it certainly isn't going to wash with the United Nations committee. I agree with you that the best approach you could provide is to get people into jobs, but you're not doing that. You are cutting child care, you are cutting programs for jobs, you got rid of programs that were putting people back into jobs, and all you've got to tell after a year and a half of squandering around with your famous workfare program is a handful of people, at best, in this program.

Minister, you're not getting people back to work. There's a severe crisis with respect to more people having to rely on food banks. There's a severe crisis with housing in this province. With people on social assistance having to use money they get through social assistance to feed their families and not being able to pay their rents, evictions are going up. The level of poverty is going up, not down.

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

Mr Silipo: What are you going to do about it except for just standing there and giving your continuing platitudes?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would like to ask the honourable member what other jurisdiction he would like to hold up that has a better record than Ontario. I would also like to remind the honourable member that food bank usage was higher during his administration, when they were increasing welfare rates.

1430

Thirdly, I would like to ask the honourable member what he and his NDP members are doing about the union leadership out there that is beating up on United Way agencies and threatening to withdraw support for them because they might want to get involved in workfare. I think that's despicable. I want to know what you're doing to stop it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Lake Nipigon, come to order please.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I'm a union member, sir.

The Speaker: I'm quite frankly not surprised, but that's got not a lot to do with it.

SAFE COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is to the Minister of Labour. All members of this House know that accidents and injuries in the workplace have a very damaging effect on the lives of Ontarians. I know that as a result of a very personal commitment to health and safety, and to young people in particular, Mr Paul Kells has been very successful in setting up a partnership with the private sector known as the Safe Communities Foundation. Minister, I wonder if you could update the House on recent developments concerning the expansion of the Safe Communities Foundation.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would certainly be pleased to update the member on the initiatives of the Safe Communities Foundation. As has been mentioned, it is a private-public partnership that certainly is the result of hard work by Paul Kells. It's financially supported by five banks and two corporations, and the Ministry of Labour lends its technical expertise.

The first community that agreed to participate was Brockville. I'm pleased to say they are enjoying a tremendous amount of success. We now have had interest expressed from Lindsay, Peterborough, North Bay, Fort Frances and St Catharines, and they have steering committees set up.

People are interested in participating, and as a result, we're hoping to expand the culture of safety within the province of Ontario. But the best news is that tomorrow this particular foundation will be announcing its second safe community in Ontario: that will be Waterloo, Ontario.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Minister, for that response. Just as a brief supplementary, what evidence do we have that participating in the safe communities program will have a positive effect on the accident and injury rate at the local level?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I know that's a question I've asked and been asked: Does this work? I can tell you that when communities work together -- employers, employees, city council, the mayor, school boards -- we are seeing a reduction. In High River, Alberta, they were able to reduce injuries and illness by 66%. Brockville has set as a goal for reduction of injury and illness 50% over two years. I am very confident that, as a result of the work that's going to be done in this province, we are going to see the social consequences of injury and illness and the financial costs dramatically reduced.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We're seeing a continuous attack by your government on disabled Ontarians every day. A few months ago there were massive staff reductions in vocational rehabilitation services in Metro and in Windsor, staff reductions by 50%. This is a program that provides training, educational upgrading and job placement for disabled Ontarians. A month or so ago we saw the leaked document by my leader in the House which outlined your proposal to charge user fees for services that the disabled use in the province of Ontario.

Minister, you are now in the process of redefining "disability," which is going to move tens of thousands of Ontarians off disability benefits on to welfare at a reduction of about 50% in their benefits. Over the weekend you talked in a number of media reports in regard to privatizing social services in Ontario. Can you outline to the House any plans you have to privatize services for disabled individuals in the province of Ontario?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): To the honourable member, I have no plans to privatize social services, and we are not cutting services to the disabled or their income benefits by 50%.

Mr Agostino: I find that denial from the minister interesting. We have a document, a ministerial document, and it outlines a proposal that your ministry requested in the vocational rehabilitation services offices in Peterborough, Bracebridge and Barrie. It's an internal ministry document -- it was written by your own staff -- that outlines a proposal to privatize vocational rehabilitation services. This is a service that deals with over 20,000 disabled Ontarians, this service that you're looking at farming out to the private sector, whose interest will be profits rather than service to disabled Ontarians. Let me read from your own staff document.

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

Mr Agostino: Let me quote from the document, Minister, from the secret document from your own staff. It says: "I feel that it's a very dangerous proposal. It sets up a real potential for abuse."

Minister, again, in view of this, can you tell us unequivocally today that you will not under any circumstances privatize any service for the disabled that your ministry is now providing in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I have no doubt that there are many officials in my ministry who are engaged in a lot of work --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Are you willing to listen to the answer? -- who are engaged in a lot of work in terms of presenting all kinds of proposals to ministers. That is their job. They do not make the policy. This minister, this caucus and cabinet make the policy, and that's where the decision lies, not with them.

The second thing I would like to remind the honourable member --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The second thing I would like to remind the honourable member is that about 25% of the Ministry of Community and Social Services budget already goes out to over 3,000 different agencies, both profit and non-profit, that give services to the disabled, that give services to other vulnerable groups of people. That is something that has gone on under previous governments, and I suspect that will continue to go on under this government.

Finally, I do not have plans to privatize social services.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy concerning his announced intentions to sell off the Ontario Clean Water Agency, presumably to his friends in the private sector.

So far, you and a couple of your colleagues have been hiding behind the entire process that's going on with privatization, and the main example that we've had so far on privatized water delivery system is in Hamilton where Philip Environmental was given a $190-million contract, and in January of this year Philip spilled 40 million gallons of sewage, as I understand it, into the Hamilton harbour.

In the UK, where they've privatized water services, one large company, British Northwest Water, made a profit of $408 million on sales of only $1.4 billion, and as though that wasn't enough, just prior to privatization in the UK, they raised water rates by 150% in order to get a good price.

So I am asking the minister, why are you tampering with the public water delivery system in this province if it's not simply to reward your friends in the private sector?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The fact of the matter is that the provincial government does not control the municipalities that make these decisions as to who they will have run their plants. In some cases, municipalities have their own employees that run their plants, in some cases, they have the Ontario Clean Water Agency, and in some cases, as in Hamilton, they have private companies run their particular operation.

It's my view, quite frankly, that the Ontario Clean Water Agency can better compete in the open market which they are facing at this present time if they are under a private structure than if they are under a public structure. Notwithstanding that, the whole goal is to get cleaner, less expensive water to the people of Ontario, and that can be done in a competitive atmosphere better than in a monopolistic atmosphere, which is presently the kind of situation we have across Ontario.

1440

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My supplementary to the minister is this, and first I want to make a comment quickly about the minister's response to a question when he said, I believe, that he doesn't care what goes into the pipe but is more concerned about what comes out, which I think is appalling and absolutely astounding, that a Minister of Environment would say that.

Back to the water issue here, when private companies get hold of our water systems -- may I say here as well it's my understanding that Philip utilities, the same one that's running the Hamilton system, is interested in buying this system. You might want to be aware of that. When they get hold of our water system, they will want to sell off as much water as possible.

Our government made water conservation part of OCWA's mandate and that saved money and helped protect the environment.

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

Ms Churley: Minister, what I want to ask you is this: There are some really dangerous precedents being set if you sell this off. What kind of public process are you going to put in place to make sure, because you said you want to move quickly, that the public has their say before you sell off our water in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: I want to make it clear to the member and members of the Legislature that we're not talking about selling off the water plants. We're not talking about selling those off because they're not ours to sell. Those are owned by the municipalities across Ontario and they will have to make their decisions as to what they may or may not do. OCWA is an operating agency that is made up of mechanics, engineers, technicians, who operate these particular plants. Those are people and they are people who are in competition with the private sector and with the public sector at the municipal level.

I believe that by offering the municipalities a competitive process, we can strengthen their hand in getting a better deal for their taxpayers across Ontario. That's what this government is all about: doing better for less. This is a proposal which I think has some merit, and of course the cabinet of Ontario and the Legislature through the cabinet will have to answer for that.

Quite frankly, this is something which I support myself --

The Speaker: The question has been answered. New question.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is to the minister responsible for culture in Ontario. Struggling to deal effectively with the inordinately high debt that has been left to this government to deal with, all ministries have been required to commit to a number of extraordinary expenditure reduction measures. Your ministry is no different than the others.

Lately, you've taken a number of hits for the kinds of reductions you've had to take. You have been criticized in some quarters for cuts to the arts and culture community. It is then with some surprise that I read in the Globe and Mail comments by Robert Fulford: "We have just begun to deal with the disquieting fact that we ran ourselves deep into debt because we were possessed by a collective looniness," and finally, "not once in that entire period" -- during the 1970s and 1980s --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Put the question, please.

Mr Shea: -- "did I ask what now seems to me a pressing question: Will this money come from taxes, or will we borrow it from Japan?"

Minister, the arts and culture community is having a hard time making the transition from the --

The Speaker: Put the question. Member for High Park-Swansea, order. The Minister of Culture.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): In response, what I would really like to say is that we as a government do recognize that culture really is the foundation of our identity, not just as a province, but I believe it defines us as a country. With that in mind, given the economic reality of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, I want to assure the honourable member that my ministry has been working very closely with the cultural community to identify ways in which they can become more self-sufficient and also to help it to develop new partnerships with the private sector to locate new sources of revenue.

Mr Shea: Robert Fulford is a distinguished columnist with the Globe and Mail. In light of his comments and in light of your response, can you suggest, for example, ways that the communities may well respond to the shortfalls in dollars from the government? Have you been pursuing issues of joint-venturing? Are you taking a look at other kinds of possibilities for the arts communities to get involved?

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York, come to order, please.

Hon Ms Mushinski: As a part of the budget, my honourable colleague Mr Eves introduced a refundable tax credit for film and television production. I'd just like to share with you some of the comments I have received as a result of that particular announcement. From Insight Productions, Mr John Branton, the president: "The program will foster employment and economic growth within the television industry." From Owl Communications: "We also appreciate the collaborative way you have worked with the industry to draft solutions that both support the government's cost-cutting program and provide ways to keep the industry vital."

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Ms Mushinski: Finally, I would like to read the following from Hansard: "The programs on film development: Clearly that is a growth industry, one that we all want to encourage. It is a unique industry that I think" --

The Speaker: The question has been answered. Minister, thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, order. Take your seat, please, Minister. Stop the clock. I would remind members that when the Speaker is standing, you take your seat. It's not in order to be standing when the Speaker is in his place.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Today the Ontario Nurses' Association filed an injunction to prevent the layoff of 387 registered nurses at the Toronto Hospital. These layoffs represent about 15% of the hospital's nursing complement. They say in their press release, "Nurses want the public to know that the level of care will suffer with the continued slashing of front-line care providers as hospitals seek to cut their budgets."

You know their budget cuts are in response to the $1.3 billion that you are taking from those hospital budgets. The registered nurses working at the Toronto Hospital are saying very clearly that patient care is in jeopardy, that patient care is being harmed. The Ontario Nurses' Association says that in this press release, says that patient care is suffering and will continue suffering unless you do something.

As Minister of Health, I'm asking you to do two things.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want one question now.

Mrs Caplan: Will you use the authority that you have to investigate this situation and to declare a moratorium to stop the layoffs of those people who, in your own words, provide care?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The member is in error. I have no authority to interfere. Nor would it be prudent, wise or fair for a member of the crown to interfere in an employee-employer relationship, particularly when an injunction has been filed with the court. I have no comment on this matter.

Mrs Caplan: I anticipated the minister's answer. In fact, you have the authority.

(1) You have it from Bill 26.

(2) The Ministry of Health Act specifically requires and obliges you as Minister of Health to investigate when you are given information that patient care is in jeopardy.

(3) A report that was given to you in June 1996 from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council says, on page 49, as follows, "HPRAC recommends that there be an investigation of the public interest implications of the utilization of health care aides and other generic workers in all health care settings."

This gives you the authority and the responsibility to investigate. You're the one who's cutting $1.3 billion. You're the one who's hurting patient care. You must intervene and declare a moratorium on nurses who deliver that care being laid off.

Hon Mr Wilson: The only authority contained in the Public Hospitals Act -- and Bill 26 is a red herring with respect to the member's question -- is if there's concrete evidence of a question of harm to quality in a hospital. I have received no evidence from that hospital or from these nurses with respect to that, so there is no basis on which to launch an investigation under the Public Hospitals Act.

I would remind the honourable member that this is a very serious matter. There has only been, to my knowledge, about two inquiries or investigations or supervisors appointed in the last 10 to 15 years. For the minister to use that section of the act, you need concrete evidence that patient quality is suffering. We don't see that evidence. We see surgeries increasing and we see administrative dollars being driven to front-line services. We don't have any evidence that the quality is suffering in that institution or any other institution in this province.

1450

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's with regard to the support grants to northern municipalities. Your government is really confusing the mayors and reeves of northern Ontario. In meetings with you and your officials, you're telling them that support grant is toast, it's history, and yet on Thursday night last in Sault Ste Marie the Premier said:

"They're wrong. I'm from the north. We respect the differences in northern Ontario. We're asking all the governments to do with less. Quite frankly, in northern Ontario bureaucracy in school boards and municipalities is already leaner than some. We have some different needs. I don't think they need to fear. We have applied the same rules here in northern Ontario as we might in Toronto."

I guess that says to them that they've got the Premier here in northern Ontario, with or without David Crombie. "I have personally given my commitment." I would think that would be more important. What is it? Is it yes or is it no? Is it toast or is it on? They want to know.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm sure the Premier has never misled the people of northern Ontario before and he has not now.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You're saying that the Premier would not mislead the people of northern Ontario. I wonder then, who is? I have a letter here, dated September 27, addressed to His Worship Mayor Vic Power and it's signed by Al Leach. The letter says: "I appreciate hearing your delegates' accounts of the special circumstances northern municipalities face that have a bearing on their ability to manage further transfer reductions. Unfortunately" -- the key word -- "I have to confirm that municipal support grant programs will be again substantially reduced." I ask the same question as my colleague: Is it you or is it the Premier who is confused on this matter? Come clean.

Hon Mr Leach: I think everybody knows there will be further reductions to the municipal block grants. That has nothing to do with whether there will be a special northern support grant or not. If the Premier indicated that there'll be a northern support grant, there will be a northern support grant.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question today is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As this is the first opportunity I have had to address the minister, I'd like to congratulate him on his new appointment and wish him the best in the future.

It's good to see that more and more businesses these days are taking advantage of the technological advances available to them. Sales and marketing no longer require a personal touch; the same result can be reached over the phone or by fax. Telemarketing is a boom industry, but as always there are some who will take advantage of the system.

It's come to my attention that people in my riding, many of them elderly individuals, have been taken advantage of through telephone fraud. As an example, one individual was offered $200 a month to stuff envelopes at home if they would only purchase the materials. They ordered and didn't receive. I've heard that this practice is fairly widespread across North America and I'd like to know what the government is doing to stop it.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Although there is a very large and legitimate telemarketing and direct marketing industry in Ontario, I am concerned, and I know members of this House are concerned, about the fraudulent scam artists who are preying upon seniors and the people who are vulnerable to this sort of thing.

We will be using every possible effective enforcement method that we have to crack down on these type of unscrupulous scam artists. In fact, there's a program that's in operation now called Project Phonebusters, which is a joint effort among the OPP, the RCMP, certainly our ministry, the federal government, and also the private sector, the Canadian Bankers' Association and the Canadian Courier Association, in order to crack down on these particular types of telemarketing fraud. They have had a good effect already. In fact, over 1996 there has been a 40% reduction in this type of telemarketing fraud in the province of Ontario.

Mr Bert Johnson: It's good to know that the government is ensuring that vulnerable individuals will be looked after. I would also like to commend you on your cooperation with other provinces in this matter.

Interjections.

Mr Bert Johnson: If the people of Lake Nipigon have no problem with this, at least their member should.

Can you tell us what issues of importance to the province of Ontario were discussed at the meetings and what your fellow consumer ministers agreed on?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I did have the opportunity to co-host the first conference for interprovincial ministers of consumer protection in about a decade, along with Martin Cauchon from the federal government. What did come out of this was an opportunity to have a lot of cooperation across the country and also with the federal government in order to do a lot for consumer protection. One of the examples would be the national standards for direct sales. Currently in Ontario it's only a two-day cooling-off period. We have agreed to try to institute a 10-day cooling-off period consistent across the country. This was a major improvement, and we are looking to have a lot of cooperation with the provinces and the federal government to do what we can for consumer protection.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the government House leader. My question involves the issue of video lottery terminals, or electronic slot machines as most people know them.

Minister, you have heard from several members of the opposition and from many people out in the public that this new venture into 20,000 video lottery terminals, electronic slot machines, in every bar and neighbourhood in the province of Ontario, every restaurant, is going to be detrimental. You have heard evidence that indeed there is going to be a lot of criminal activity potentially involved in this particular activity that's being sanctioned by your government in order to get more revenue to make up for your tax cut.

As government House leader, would you give an undertaking today in the House that you will withdraw the bill which would allow for video lottery terminals and rethink this whole issue?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): No, I will not give such an undertaking to the member opposite.

Mr Bradley: I am extremely disappointed, though not entirely surprised, although a bit surprised by the response.

May I ask you this then at this point: You have received considerable evidence. We have a report that we cannot get from you. We've made reference to this report from the police intelligence service which talks about widespread involvement of the criminal element in gaming in Ontario.

Minister, will you at least give an undertaking that you, as government House leader, will ensure that members of the opposition have available to them -- and your own members -- a form of this report in order that you can better make a judgement on whether you should proceed or not? I'm convinced you should not, but I believe you should at least provide this report to members of the opposition, having heard all the concerns that have been expressed.

Hon David Johnson: This report has been the topic of questions from the opposition ranks over the past several days. The Solicitor General has commented on this particular report. I can add no more to what the Solicitor General has commented.

The House leaders are in the process of arranging for the business that will come before the House, and all bills coming before this House will be part of that discussion. The member opposite, being the House leader for the Liberal Party, can make his points during the House leaders' meeting. I don't think there's anything else I can say on that particular issue.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, my question today to you is about your bad-boss bill, a bill that is receiving final debate and a third-reading vote, either today or a deferred vote, but today will be the last opportunity to speak publicly.

This bill takes away rights from working people. It's part of your ongoing effort to drive down working conditions and the standard of living of working families. It allows you to lay off one third of the employment standards enforcement officers as a result of the passage of Bill 49, your bad-boss bill. The only people who are going to benefit from this bill are the bad bosses that exploit workers.

1500

Minister, there was a news conference today in which the employment standards working group released the statistics on their bad-boss hotline. The reality is, vulnerable workers are being made more vulnerable by your changes to the Employment Standards Act. Why didn't you listen to the people who made submissions and told you the reality out there? Why didn't you listen to those workers?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I think it's very, very important that we set the record straight right now. As you know, Mr Speaker, our legislation does not affect any of the minimum standards that are already there. In fact, what our bill does is offer the protection to the vulnerable workers that has not been there in the past. We are going to streamline enforcement. We are going to make sure that people get the money that is owed to them much more quickly, because unfortunately you got rid of the collection agency within the employment standards branch. You forced the present employment standards officers to not only issue orders but also collect money. Then, I would add, also, it was your government that laid off 198 people in the past five years from the employment standards branch and the occupational health and safety branch. So talk about layoffs; you laid off 198 people and you've reduced funding by $42 million.

BROADCAST AND RECORDING SERVICE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if you were aware that this is the 10th anniversary of the Broadcast and Recording Service of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Perhaps members would like to pay tribute to those who provide this service for the people of this province.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 43 and 44.

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

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My office received another 1,200 signatures on the same petition as I've presented all this week to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closure of two Sudbury acute care hospitals; and

"Whereas the overall number of available beds will be reduced by approximately 35%; and

"Whereas the reduction in beds will affect Sudbury's ability to remain the referral centre for health care in northeastern Ontario; and

"Whereas there will be a large number of layoffs in the health profession, impacting the quality of local health care and our Sudbury economy; and

"Whereas the global annual budget for Sudbury health care will be reduced by 25%;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close two acute care Sudbury hospitals."

I affix my signature to it.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition here from members of my community and it's in three languages, in English, Chinese and Vietnamese, I believe. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Do not make government cuts to housing, particularly those to the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. They place too much burden on seniors and those who can least afford them; and

"Restore access to medical treatment by abolishing the co-payment to the Ontario drug benefit program. Respect our seniors."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I have a petition for the Legislature. The petition is one of many to end the spring bear hunt. Bear with me as I read the "whereases."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition from constituents of my riding and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly. I'd like to read it.

"Whereas the Harris government is planning to remove rent controls; and

"Whereas the removal of rent control legislation breaks a campaign promise made by the Conservatives during the election; and

"Whereas a great number of tenants are seniors and people on fixed incomes, and many have had their incomes cut by 22% due to social assistance cuts and cannot afford increases in their rent; and

"Whereas growing unemployment and the scarcity of affordable housing in Metro makes the removal of rent control an even greater disaster for tenants and for people who cannot afford to buy homes;

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

"That the government of Ontario keep its pre-election promise and not remove rent controls, and continue with the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rental Housing Protection Act."

I concur with the contents and I will affix my signature to it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition here signed by 200 people from Orde Street Parent Council. They want to be included in any changes that are made to the educational system as part of the decision-making process and they're arguing here against cutbacks to education.

The Orde Street Parent Council is opposed to the $1-billion cutback to Ontario's education system. More is slated to come out and they're very concerned about that.

The education minister's proposed budget sheet, found in his paper Meeting Students' Needs, ignores the needs of special education. It omits programs that are essential to the educational day of all students: A library staff by a teacher-librarian, music and arts instruction, physical education by a qualified teacher and the supervised lunch program.

They're very worried about the reintroduction of streaming and they're very concerned about the secretive discussions of the complete overhaul of education to be finalized by November 30, 1996.

I affix my signature to their concerns.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to present a petition from my riding and from the member for Carleton's riding with respect to the spring bear hunt.

"Petition to the Parliament of Ontario: