Journal des débats 1998-mai-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): This is Education Week in Ontario. It is a time to celebrate the goals and the strengths and the achievements of public education.

We should all be standing on the rooftops and shouting about how far we have come in meeting our ambitious goal - the goal of providing a quality education to every individual with regard to that individual's needs but without regard to the individual's ability to pay. There is much to celebrate in the fact, for example, that our grade 11 students were among the top in the world on international tests of science; or in the fact that our students perform at least at average levels on national tests, even though we have by far the highest proportion of students writing those tests whose first language is not English; or in the fact that we have the highest proportion of young adults with a secondary school diploma of every province.

But it's hard to remember to celebrate our achievements when we see the chaos the Mike Harris government has brought to education in the past year. After last week, with announcement after announcement of job losses and the knowledge that adult education would be gutted in Toronto and the recognition that dozens and dozens of schools are going to be closed and that special-needs kids and our youngest children are going to lose the support they need, there is more of a sense of shock across the province than there is a sense of celebration.

There is a new challenge to education week this year. It is the challenge of saying loudly and clearly what those of us who are concerned about public education value and how our values are threatened as never before, and why all of us who care will fight to protect public education in the months to come. We want to be able to celebrate Education Week next year -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statement, member for Algoma.

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): As of May 1, the Ministry of Environment has issued a permit to the Nova Group of Sault Ste Marie to take 600 million litres of water from Lake Superior to be bottled and exported into the Asian market. The Ministry of Environment did not even follow its own government's procedures in considering this application. The ministry is required to consult with the sister ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and this was not done, with no explanation why from the minister.

Since 1985, Ontario has been required to consult with neighbouring jurisdictions about any suggestions of taking water from the Great Lakes. This government did not consult with any of those jurisdictions - no explanation why. Also, this provincial government has ignored, in giving this permit, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, in which the federal governments of Canada and the United States set up the International Joint Commission with responsibility for protecting boundary waters such as the Great Lakes Basin. It may be that this permit is in violation of that treaty.

Also, under NAFTA, once an export permit is issued and the business begins, it may be impossible to prevent the expansion of the export of this very important natural resource that we should be protecting.

The government should resign on this matter immediately.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in the House to talk about an increase in employment in the great city of Peterborough. The city of Peterborough has been advised that it rates second in all of Canada in job creation.

It was a proud moment for me to stand today and congratulate the many companies and resourceful people of Peterborough in attaining such an outstanding record. A Statistics Canada labour force survey has reported an increase of 12.7% in job growth between 1995 and 1997. This is more than twice the pace of growth in the rest of the country. This growth rate is indicative of over 4,000 jobs being created in this period of time.

Although Medicine Hat was ranked number one, they have done so due to major increases in natural gas production. We in Peterborough can credit a portion of our increase to far more diversification. This increase in jobs is done because of many small companies that build such items as kitchen cabinets and sophisticated electronic measuring instruments, companies like Peterborough Home Hardware Building Centre, Harco Enterprises Ltd, Swish Maintenance and Strano-Cysco Foodservice. Through their diligent and entrepreneurial spirit, these employees have built their companies in extremely successful businesses.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to sincerely congratulate all the companies in Peterborough that have contributed to this great honour.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My statement today regards emergency services at Windsor hospitals. Yet again the emergency rooms in Essex county are overburdened, and what concerns Windsorites greatly is that despite all the announcements that are now fanning out across Ontario, what Windsor people realize is that all they are is just announcements. What Windsor people need today is action. What we need is relief in our emergency rooms.

On April 18 we called again, on the first-year anniversary of the closure of the Windsor Western ER, for special intervention. We asked for a tactical unit from the Ministry of Health to swoop down on Windsor and fix our situation right away. Even our hospital administrators are saying that while these announcements are fine, we're talking eight years down the road. What Windsor needs today is immediate relief.

We ask for an announcement that makes a difference. We ask to actually have more nurses in the ER to take care of people. I'd like to ask the members of this House what difference it makes to have more room around a bed when you make a capital announcement when we have the same level of nurses, and that is not enough nurses.

If I may say to the members of this House, you are aware of the health line that we launched in Windsor. You know we've had hundreds of Windsorites call. What difference does it make to Windsor to have announcements when what we really need from this government is action? I implore the Minister of Health to come down with real action for Windsor emergencies.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Many members of this Legislature may not know that only moments ago the Premier made a very extraordinary and important announcement for hepatitis C victims in the province of Ontario. I have often said in this House that when a government does the right thing, I'll be the first one to stand and say they've done the right thing. In deciding to extend compensation to those hepatitis C victims who were infected through our blood system prior to 1986, the government has done the right thing.

But let me say on this one that my plaudits go only so far, because I am absolutely disgusted by the way in which we got to this point.

A year ago, the then Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, refused to sit down and talk about compensation.

Originally the position taken by the current minister was, "No compensation." Last week, in answer to one of our questions, she said: "No. No more compensation." The next day on CFRB she said, "We call on the federal government to pay for more compensation." The next thing, she was on a phone call to the other health ministers and she said: "Okay, we agree to the original deal. There will be no more compensation." Then the Premier said: "Oh, no. There's got to be more compensation, but those feds are going to pay for it."

The public doesn't buy any of that. They don't buy this nonsense about legal liability, which is why the Premier now has had to cave in. But you know, it's the right thing that he caved in. We applaud him for that.

MURRAY PORTEOUS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I'm very proud to acknowledge a gentleman from my riding, Murray Porteous, who has recently been named Ontario's Outstanding Young Farmer.

Murray Porteous, along with his father, his uncle and his brother-in-law, is a partner in the 500-acre Lingwood Farms, a cherry, pear and apple operation. Their operation uses current technology such as leaf sampling and soil mapping to keep pesticide use to a minimum and to achieve a consistency in their crops.

Like any successful activity, farming takes teamwork and creativity. The Porteous farm is no exception, with great teamwork between all partners, family members and seasonal Jamaican workers.

I have known the family for years and worked on their farm during my university days.

Murray is also active in a number of organizations off the farm - the Norfolk Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association and the Agricultural Adaptation Council - and through his work is known by a number of MPPs in the House. He is also on the board of the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair and active in the Full Gospel Fellowship in Simcoe.

I congratulate Murray Porteous on being named Ontario's Outstanding Young Farmer and wish him good luck when competing for Canada's Outstanding Young Farmer as well.

1340

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My statement is addressed to the Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer.

Your health restructuring commission, Minister, removed more than $120 million in services from the Ottawa-Carleton area. On Friday, with great fanfare, you reinvested $45.4 million to create 1,300 long-term-care beds over eight years. To make matters worse, the first 300 beds won't be in place before December 1999.

Don't you realize that we have at the present time a waiting list of more than 1,400 people, seniors? Our senior citizens are the fastest-growing population in all of Ontario.

My colleagues in Ottawa-Carleton, including the district health council, are disappointed with your announcement. Would you not agree with your colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau, Mr Guzzo, that 1,300 beds is inadequate for Ottawa-Carleton?

LTC has been neglected for too long. The last time a provincial government funded new beds in the Ottawa-Carleton area was under a Liberal government. Minister, will you do the right thing and provide us with more beds?

ST CATHARINES DAYS OF ACTION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It has been an interesting few days in Ontario when we look at where the Premier of the province has been and what he said and where the leader of the Ontario New Democrats, Howard Hampton, has been and what he said.

Let's start with the Premier. He spoke, of course, to his good friends at the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. What did he have to say to them? "You had the courage to stand by our party in a tough election fight and stay with us through some challenging times. I want to assure you that we will not forget the support you've shown us." As we all know, as the government's fiscal agenda unfolds, tomorrow is another payday for the Premier's friends at the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

But what also happened in the province over the same few days? Thousands of people from all walks of life - not just one segment of society, those who are already doing quite well, thank you very much, but from all walks of life - showed up in St Catharines to protest those very policies that the chamber of commerce is so happy to see.

What did the labour leaders say? Well, Maureen McCarthy, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers provincial council, said: "Mike Harris - Ontario is not yours to destroy. It's ours and we're taking it back."

What did Howard Hampton say? Howard said, "We will never support a society where people are measured by the size of their bank accounts."

If ever we needed to see where there's a province of "us" and "them," as the Tories have created, this is it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member, will you come to order. I don't find that the least bit amusing, not the least bit amusing.

JESSE'S JOURNEY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I rise today to tell the House about a very special Ontarian and to ask all Ontarians to take the opportunity to meet him and support his cause.

John Davidson is a resident of London whose son Jesse has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In 1995, John pushed Jesse in his wheelchair more than 3,300 kilometres across Ontario in an awareness and fund-raising endeavour. Thanks to the support of generous Ontario residents, Jesse's Journey raised $1.3 million to fund genetic research.

Although Jesse is now physically unable to participate in such an arduous endeavour, the 1998 event, entitled Jesse's Journey - A Father's Tribute, continues the work of the original journey. It was launched on April 10 and involves John's cross-country trek from St John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, BC. John will enter Ontario at Cornwall on July 11 and exit the province to Manitoba via Kenora on October 12.

The financial goal is to generate $10 million to create an endowment fund which will continue to direct $1 million a year towards research to defeat a host of genetic diseases, including Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It is a formidable goal, and I hope all Ontarians will come out to support John when he passes through your community this summer.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on May 4 and May 6, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It gives me great pleasure to announce that today, May 4, is the first day of Ice Storm Disaster Relief Week across Ontario.

In early January, eastern Ontario was crippled by a horrific ice storm. Many residents in the area were left without heat or electricity. Property, power lines and trees suffered severe damage.

This storm brought out Ontario's true strength: the ability of neighbours, friends and complete strangers to come together quickly and compassionately to help each other at a time of need. Local councils and their staff were invaluable in getting their communities through these very difficult days. Ministers Snobelen, Villeneuve and Sterling as well as Mr Runciman all worked cooperatively through their respect ministries, along with mine, to ensure that public health, safety and security were all maintained. The staff from each of these ministries and Ontario Hydro deserve our highest praise for the countless hours they put in to get the job done.

Our government reacted quickly to financially assist the devastated communities. We provided eastern Ontario with millions of dollars in emergency assistance. Working with the federal government, we have established various programs providing millions of dollars for disaster recovery to help individuals, businesses and farmers get back on their feet again.

But we've gone even further than that. Under the Ontario disaster relief program, for other disasters, the government has typically matched every fund-raised dollar with $1. Due to the devastation of the ice storm, this government has agreed to match every fund-raised dollar at the generous level of up to $4.

This ice storm has been called the worst natural disaster in Canadian history. The Premier, myself and local MPPs Baird, Fox, Guzzo, Jordan, Runciman and Vankoughnet as well as Ministers Villeneuve and Sterling spent a great deal of time in eastern Ontario, surveying the damage and speaking to the people affected by the storm. We were all struck by how the communities came together to help each other, and I know the Premier was proud to tour the area during the local hero's tour in March and personally thank many of the volunteers.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of each of the eight local disaster relief committees, as well as the umbrella committee under the direction of Jim Bennett. The people involved have voluntarily devoted hours of time to fund-raising and setting up fair claims processes, and they've done an excellent job.

We all completely support the actions of the Eastern Ontario Disaster Relief Committee, this week in particular, and fully back them in their fund-raising efforts.

We ask citizens in all parts of the province to help those in eastern Ontario, to open their hearts and their wallets, remembering that for every cent they donate, the province kicks in up to four.

Many fund-raising events are planned across Ontario this week and in the following weeks. I hope everyone can get out, participate and support the recovery effort in eastern Ontario.

EDUCATION WEEK

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Today marks the start of Education Week across the province and I encourage everyone to join me in celebrating Education: Passport to Hope, Opportunities, Jobs and Growth. This theme was chosen for celebrations because the government understands how fundamental a solid and excellent education is to individual success.

Education Week 1998 marks a milestone for every individual involved in education in Ontario. The sector has experienced its most significant change in three decades. No government has taken on the scope of change that we have to raise the standard of education in this province. We have implemented province-wide testing, standard report cards, class-size limitations, new and more rigorous curricula, more class time, a new high school program, and a funding formula that focuses resources in the classroom, on students and teachers.

1350

These reforms have been put in place as part of our commitment to improve the quality of education in the province of Ontario. They will help shape an education system known for excellence, discipline and accountability.

Our students stand at the brink of a new millennium. Their education - an Ontario education - must prepare them for the future. It must provide them with the skills and knowledge they will need to succeed in this new century. It must serve as a passport to hope, opportunity, jobs and growth.

Education Week is the time to highlight the accomplishments and successes of all our students. School boards throughout the province are sponsoring an estimated 1,000 events to showcase the work of students. There will be open houses, art displays, technology demonstrations, science fairs, fund-raising activities for local charities, grandparent and volunteer days, and activities to clean up and enhance the environment.

The Ministry of Education and Training has published an extensive list of Education Week events on its Web site. I urge all members of this House to get involved in these activities, perhaps by attending an open house, a school council meeting or planting trees with kids.

This government is committed to providing each of its students with not only the highest-quality education ever delivered in the province of Ontario but also the best-quality education in Canada. Guided by parents, we will focus on measurable results benchmarked against the world.

Education Week allows everyone involved in and dedicated to education in Ontario to celebrate achievements and look forward to even greater accomplishments.

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to respond on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party to the statement read a moment ago by the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to that vicious ice storm which ravaged eastern Ontario this past January.

I want to join with the minister in paying tribute particularly to all of those who worked so hard and volunteered so much through what was an exceptionally difficult time. I live in the city of Pembroke and we were on the edge of the storm, though many of my constituents in the southern part of the county of Renfrew were hit very hard indeed. The electrical workers, other emergency workers, municipal officials, everyone, people by the score from Vankleek Hill to Bancroft and from Cobden down to Bainsville worked, and worked very hard. We want first and foremost, I think, to congratulate those people who worked under those conditions to make a very difficult situation bearable. There was much good to acknowledge and there is much positive to reinforce.

But all was not good. I will not myself forget that afternoon in the second week - I think it was Tuesday, January 13 - at a transformer station in Nepean where Bill Farlinger, the chair of Ontario Hydro, with the Minister of Energy at his elbow, was seen by the thousands of people in the region - the chairman of Ontario Hydro - pounding the desk and saying, "I can't get the information, so I can appreciate the frustration of farmers," and rural folk particularly, who were desperate to know what the hell was going on and couldn't find out.

I think if we've learned one thing in this, we've learned that Ontario Hydro did not have an emergency or a contingency plan that they could quickly put into place. To give the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton credit, they appeared to have a plan and they activated it very quickly. Ontario Hydro may have had a plan, but I've got to tell you that people I know and am related to, for example, down in Glengarry county, wondered if they would ever hear from Ontario Hydro as to if, as and when the hydro would ever come back in Lochiel township.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and my colleagues from Cornwall, Prescott and Russell and Kingston, to name but four, were desperately trying to get the information and get it out to the nearly 80,000 people who were out of power for days and weeks and could not get the information from Ontario Hydro.

I want to say to this House, and most especially to my urban colleagues on all sides, can you imagine being out in South Renfrew or North Frontenac or in Prescott and Russell, in 20-below temperatures, having been without power for two weeks, phoning into Ontario Hydro to find out when you might get your power back and being told to call somebody in Markham, where they wouldn't know Cobden from Kalamazoo, where they wouldn't know Moose Creek from Moosonee. To be fair to those people, how could they?

People were mad as hell, and they had a right to be mad. They saw the chair of Ontario Hydro pounding the table on day eight of the ice storm, Farlinger saying, "I can't get the information." Farmers and rural folks by the thousands were equally distressed when they couldn't get the information and they waited days and weeks before they got the information.

I say to the Minister of Agriculture, we've got and he's got scores of resolutions from rural municipalities across the region begging Ontario Hydro to put in place a communications system so that if you're a rural customer, especially in rural eastern Ontario, there will be a better communications network, not just for this kind of emergency but for routine business. The ice storm -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Stop the clock for a minute, please.

Interjections.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Gilles is waiting for his turn.

The Speaker: Order, Minister. Folks, if you want to meet, can you go into the lobby? Thanks.

Mr Conway: So I say to the House, and to the Minister of Energy especially, those rural municipalities and, more important, those 80,000 rural customers want to know, and they want to know soon: Are we going to see an end to the call centre in Markham? Are we going to have what everybody wants, which is a better, more responsive, regionally based communications network so that in the event of this kind of difficulty in the past, friends from Moose Creek and Calabogie will not have to sit and freeze in the dark and wonder, like Bill Farlinger, will anybody ever tell them when the power is coming back on?

EDUCATION WEEK

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I would just like to say to the Minister of Education that we'd all love to be able to join in celebrating education in Ontario this week, because there has always been much to celebrate. Unfortunately, we know that this government doesn't want to celebrate public education; they want to destroy public education in this province. If you want proof of that, just look at what happened last week, with hundreds and hundreds of job layoffs, school closing plans, early education disasters and the loss of special education and adult education. We'll be grieving for public education next year.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to respond to the vacuous statement of the Minister of Education regarding Education Week. The minister says that he has limited class size, that he has a more rigorous curriculum and that there will be more class time for students. In fact they have an average class size; they haven't put limits on the class size. The more rigorous curriculum requires 7.2 credits per year for four years, which doesn't work out to the 30 credits required for a student to graduate from secondary education. How does that work? And more class time simply means fewer teachers with more students, which means less individual time per student with the teacher. It's not more class time.

The new funding formula has meant enormous cuts right across Ontario. Just some examples: the Limestone district school board in Kingston and area - 40 support staff already laid off; 88 secondary and 35 elementary teachers to go. Ottawa-Carleton issued 605 layoff notices last Friday, mostly to custodians, school office staff and central office staff, but also to social workers, psychologists and teaching assistants as part of a $4-million cut to special education. This is a government that says that it wants to help students.

Peel has issued 400 layoff notices to teachers. Halton last week issued 272 notices to instructional assistants in elementary and secondary schools. Schools are being closed right across Ontario: 35 schools proposed for closure in Niagara; 120 schools proposed for closure in Toronto; 20 schools proposed for closure in Ottawa.

This funding formula means cuts to things like libraries in many school boards.

This is a government that says they've maintained classroom expenditures. The Durham District School Board is cut by $5.6 million, the Halton district school board by $3.5 million, the Niagara district school board cut by more than $1 million and the Peel District School Board by $3.7 million, which is increased to $6.3 million by the year 2000-01. The Sudbury district school board is cut by more than $800,000, the Toronto Catholic district school board cut by more than $200,000, and at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, instead of teacher-librarians, each school will now only have a half-time library technician.

This is a government that said it was going to protect classroom expenditures and protect education. In fact they've already cut almost $1 billion and the cuts continue. This funding formula means there are going to be fewer teachers, despite the fact that the average class size says there are supposed to be more teachers. How is a board supposed to square that circle? Virtually every school board we talked to mentioned how difficult it is to get a grasp on what their funding really is going to be for the coming school year. The ministry's numbers keep changing. They do not coincide with board numbers.

Just today, newspapers reported that the Durham Catholic District School Board will be getting a 2.7% increase, or $4 million to $5 million next year, not the 4.54% or $13 million announced by the ministry. Which one is right? Nobody knows what the figures actually are and they apparently now won't know until almost the end of this month. How is a board supposed to plan for September if it doesn't know what its figures are, even by the end of May?

These boards are having to cut programs for students, they're having to cut classroom education. This funding formula, along with the passage of Bill 160 and Bill 104, puts the lie to the government's position about protecting classroom education in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Wildman: I withdraw, although - well, I withdraw.

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs around the aftermath of the ice storm. Let me just say to him and to the government that while we share the concerns expressed by many around the problems Hydro found itself in with the lack of information, among other things, I want to say today in a very non-partisan way that we generally appreciate and accept the way in which the government has handled the situation in the aftermath of the ice storm, in acting in a way that responded to the concerns that were out there.

I want to raise quickly one concern which is around the matching dollars. I would just say to the minister and to the government that I hope that their door is open to the communities that are not able to raise all the funds they need, that they will still be there to provide the support that's necessary.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand the government has just tabled a resolution calling for compensation for victims of hepatitis C. I'm asking for unanimous consent that we have an emergency debate on this resolution immediately following routine proceedings today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The leader of the third party is seeking unanimous consent for an emergency debate following routine proceedings today. Agreed? Agreed.

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We have a deferred vote. A five-minute bell. Call in the members, please.

The division bells rang from 1404 to 1409.

The Speaker: Voting on the amendment by Mr Hampton:

This House regrets that the Harris government has implemented a phoney income tax scheme which, unless it is reversed by the next government of Ontario, will entrench permanently the cuts which are causing hardship for our youngest, our oldest, our sickest and our least fortunate in society.

The first question to be decided is Mr Hampton's amendment to the amendment to the motion.

All those in favour, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Boyd, Marion

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Pouliot, Gilles

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Jim

Castrilli, Annamarie

Clement, Tony

Conway, Sean G.

Cullen, Alex

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Patten, Richard

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Preston, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 10; the nays are 78.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

We will now deal with Mr McGuinty's amendment to the motion.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1413 to 1418.

The Speaker: All those in favour of Mr McGuinty's motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 27; the nays are 62.

The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.

Mrs Elliott moves the adoption of the throne speech.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1422 to 1427.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 62; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It is therefore resolved that an humble address be presented to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable Hilary M. Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

Just a note. The motion that will be debated following routine proceedings will be delivered before we actually get into the debate, so you should be receiving it between now and when the debate takes place.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): That would be helpful.

The Speaker: That's why we're going to do it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Your ministry has signed an agreement with the Nova Group in Sault Ste Marie to sell 600 million litres of water per year to Asia. This is the first agreement of its type signed by any jurisdiction in North America. This agreement has been slammed by the US State Department, the Canadian Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, among others. We understand that this also may breach a number of national and international treaties, according to the Great Lakes commission.

Most Ontarians believe it is fundamentally wrong for you to sell our water, one of our most basic resources, one of the most essential resources of this province. We do not think the future of this province should be up for sale for private profit and greed as a result of the incompetence, in agreeing to this deal, of your ministry.

I want to ask you simply, Minister, were you aware of this deal before it was signed, and do you agree with it?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'm very concerned with the export of Ontario's water resources and any diversion from the Great Lakes. I want to make it clear that my ministry does not issue permits to export and sell water. My ministry does issue permits to take water. Clearly the matter of the exporting of water is a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you have given a permit to a company to take this water and export it. It's that simple. Do not try to pass the buck. It was your ministry that you're responsible for and you did this without any consultation.

I have the application that was submitted by the ministry. Here's what some of the answers were.

Question: "Pre-application consultation with the Ministry of the Environment?" The answer: "No."

"Environmental study report?" The answer: "No."

"Preliminary report?" The answer: "No."

"Design report?" The answer: "No."

"Final plans and specifications?" The answer again: "No."

This was the application that your ministry approved. You didn't ask for the information, you did no background, you did no environmental assessment on this.

This is a sweetheart deal. It has been negotiated in the back rooms by your ministry. You were not even aware of it, according to what you said publicly. I find it absolutely amazing that such a precedent-setting deal that could put this province and this country at stake could be signed.

Minister, will you do the right thing today and eliminate this agreement, get out of it and get Ontario, with some credibility, out of this whole mess that you've gotten us into?

Hon Mr Sterling: Notification of this application for permit appeared on the environmental registry for a period of 30 days. There was notice to the public. There was notice to everyone in the province of Ontario through the environmental registry. There was notice to anyone who viewed the registry that in fact it was there.

Under our Ontario law, the director must consider the environmental consequences of issuing a permit. His particular evaluation of it was that the removal of this water did not have dire environmental or any environmental consequences on the people of Ontario, and therefore the permit was issued.

Mr Agostino: I find it amazing that you would stand up and actually say what you just said, that there was no environmental impact. You didn't ask the questions, Minister. Your own report says that there was no environmental study report submitted, that there was no preliminary report, that there was no water quality report. How can you stand there as the minister responsible for the environment and suggest that this has gone through some process of assessing the environmental damage and impact when very clearly in your own document there's no such thing done? The answer was no.

Minister, you've crossed the line here. Is there anything sacred left that your ministry and your government are not willing to sell for the sake of a buck here? Is there anything at all that Ontarians can feel secure about that you're not willing to give away?

Again, this is the report; this is the application you have signed. I ask you, for the sake of Ontarians and for the sake of the future of our credibility, and not to open the floodgates to basically selling off our greatest asset. Will you do the right thing today, Minister? Follow my lead. This is the document. Rip it up, as I have now, on behalf of the people of Ontario. Fail to do that and you have shown the greatest level of neglect of any minister in the history of the province.

Hon Mr Sterling: My director followed the policies, regulations and laws of this province, the laws as they were in the previous government and in the government previous to that. This is the first instance that I have knowledge of where there has been an effort on the part of an individual to sell or export -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question? Sorry, go ahead.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, come to order. Member for Ottawa West, you're not in your seat.

Hon Mr Sterling: My ministry and the director of my ministry acted in accordance with the law. It is clear that this province does not have the jurisdiction to control the export of water. In fact, that very government the member represents tried to bring in an act to prevent that. Their lawyers advised them not proclaim that act, nor did that government proclaim that act, because the province does not have the jurisdiction to do that.

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the minister of education. Ontario university students were here this morning to raise their growing concerns about tuition fee increases. They're concerned about the 20% across-the-board increases you're allowing and they're concerned about the sky is the limit increases that are going to come with your deregulation of many programs.

I have here the proposed tuition increases for Queen's University and they are absolutely shocking. If these proposals go ahead, nursing students will be paying 32% more to take their training, education students will face an increase of 55%, almost $1,800 more, and in medicine, anyone admitted to Queen's will pay $5,000 more, an increase of 124%. How can you possibly justify these kind of fee increases?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The universities and colleges set the tuitions and many of them have not yet set tuition fees for the coming fall, so to a large degree any of the tuition fees the member's talking about would be speculation.

But if the issue is one of accessibility, I'm very proud to say that in the province of Ontario there are over 400,000 students at post-secondary institutions in our universities and colleges. That represents a participation rate of over 40%, which is the highest rate in all of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development nations in all the world. We have the highest participation rate right here in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I guess this government's policy for post-secondary education is to change that kind of record on accessibility, because giving the universities the freedom to raise their fees to whatever the market will bear is going to make some programs and some universities accessible only to the well-to-do. We are heading right into the two-tiering of our education system.

You are also making university and college generally unaffordable. Every college and university is feeling cash-strapped because of your cuts, and your answer is to tell them to make the students pay more. Don't tell us that the 20% you're allowing across the board is permissive, because every university is looking at having to raise those fees. Trent, Windsor, Waterloo, McMaster, Wilfrid Laurier, Queen's, Carleton, St Clair College, Mohawk College have already decided they're going to have to raise their undergraduate fees next year and that is just the beginning.

When your fee increases are fully in place, you will have raised - just your government - tuition fees by over 60%. Students are already experiencing sticker shock. They are afraid that university and college are financially out of reach. Will you stop the skyrocketing fees and freeze tuition now?

Hon David Johnson: Again, the member opposite is speculating on what universities and colleges will or will not do this fall. Some have actually set the tuition fees and some have set them well below the kind of figures the member opposite is speculating on.

I can tell you, though, some facts in this whole situation about what this particular government has done, in an unparalleled fashion, to help post-secondary students in Ontario. We have increased the direct student assistance from $400 million when we took office to over $535 million today, direct financial assistance to help post-secondary students in Ontario. We have instituted the student opportunity trust fund, a matching fund between the private sector and the government of Ontario, almost $600 million in funds to help our post-secondary students across Ontario. We have insisted that 30% of all tuition fee increases go to assist students in need, and in 1998-99 that will represent $80 million. We have increased assistance right across the board.

1440

Mrs McLeod: The reason you're putting any more dollars at all into student assistance, and it is into student loans, is because your tuition increases are forcing students to take out more loans. This is all part of the escalating student debt, and you haven't helped with that debt load. You have cut away the student assistance that would help to reduce the debt. You've even replaced the loan forgiveness program with a capped offering to students that just allows you to meet your bottom line and the students to be left with more and more debt.

I'm asking you to focus on the debt load. Surely you have some concern about the fact that your tuition increases and your reduction in support for students that would keep the debt down is going to leave us with a generation of debt-ridden graduates. Your answer to that in the past has simply been, "Don't worry. We'll allow you to repay your massive debt at a rate that your income allows," and even the banks are now saying to you that your plan won't work, because the debt load is simply too high.

Minister, I ask you again, in the name of reducing debt loads for students, will you stop the deregulation, freeze tuition fees and work with students to make debt loads manageable?

Hon David Johnson: What we will continue to do is make sure that students have access to post-secondary programs. Over 40% of our students have access today, the highest across this planet. We will continue to ensure that our students have excellence in programs in post-secondary institutions and we will continue to ensure that our students have opportunity in the classes that are oversubscribed today, that there will be opportunities for students to excel.

All of the money I have talked about is in the form of grants, direct assistance to the students of Ontario. Never before has there been such assistance to students in Ontario.

Finally, I make note that under the Liberal regime between 1985 and 1990 tuition increases were 35% in our universities in Ontario.

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment regarding his decision to put a For Sale sign on Ontario's water. Minister, on the weekend your Premier told Ontario's corporate leaders that they had been there for your government and now you're going to be there for them. I guess your sale of Ontario's water is just another indication that with your government everything in Ontario is for sale, including our water.

You've been quoted as saying that you are concerned about the cumulative effect of these kinds of things going on, so I'm going to give you another chance. It's your government that has given the approval, so here's your chance. Stand up today and tell the people of Ontario that you will revoke the permit, that Ontario's water is not for sale to the highest corporate bidder.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): As I said before, we're very concerned about this particular fact and the cumulative effect of water-taking out of the Great Lakes. That is why I have called upon Lloyd Axworthy of the federal government to relook at the Great Lakes charter and consider the cumulative effect of taking water out of the Great Lakes, to consider this new issue of exporting water out of the Great Lakes to countries other than the United States and Canada.

Before Ottawa, Ontario has been involved in this debate as a neighbouring state to the other Great Lakes states. However, when we get to the export and sale of water outside of this country, that is clearly within the federal government's mandate.

Mr Hampton: Never have I seen such a shuffle as this. Look, Minister, it is your ministry, your government that grants the permits for the taking of water - no one else. Your ministry, your government has granted a permit allowing a corporation to take 600 million litres of water out of Lake Superior each year for export. Your government is the government that's putting Ontario's water up for sale - no one else.

My point to you is simply this: You could today take the public interest into consideration. You could take the interest of all of Ontario's citizens into consideration and you could say: "I'm revoking this permit. This permit is dead." Will you do that?

Hon Mr Sterling: The permit which we have given to citizens of the province of Ontario allows them to take water from Lake Superior. It does not allow them to sell it, it does not allow them to export it. In fact it limits them -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Sterling: We're very concerned about this. That's why we're asking the federal government to come to grips with this problem. They are involved with the export of water, the export of any product from this country. If they want to limit it, they should; in fact we will encourage them to do so.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, let me say to you, you don't have to rely on a weak-kneed Liberal government. It is up to you to take responsibility for this issue now. What do you think they're going to be doing with that water?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): How many Liberal members in Ontario?

Ms Churley: It's that Liberal government in Ottawa that's about to sell this country out to the MAI agreement. Don't count on them. You take responsibility. What do you think that company wants to do with the water when they take it out, Minister?

There is the Great Lakes charter and, yes, there is a trigger level of 19 million litres a day and this is only 10 million, but there is the spirit of that charter. The United States at least on three occasions when they've wanted to divert water has consulted with both Ontario and Quebec when they didn't have to. It is the spirit of the agreement. You didn't even consult with your Minister of Natural Resources. This is setting a precedent that bodes very badly for us down the road. You take responsibility today, Minister, and revoke that permit. Our water is not to be given away to your corporate friends.

Hon Mr Sterling: I agree that perhaps in the future we need better consultation among all parties with regard to these kinds of matters. That is why I'm recommending to the federal minister that he convene a meeting between the various interested parties under the Great Lakes charter to set forth a more comprehensive policy to deal with these new intrusions into our very valuable resource of water in our Great Lakes. We are most concerned about this and we will take every step that we possibly can to protect this valuable resource.

1450

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Premier - and I guess the answer to the last question is that this government will rely on a federal Liberal government that's busy negotiating MAI agreements to give away everything else.

Premier, we are a bit puzzled. Last week, we asked your government -

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Premier, last week we asked your Minister of Health why your government had sided with the federal Liberal government in signing a so-called compensation package for tainted blood that left up to 30,000 Ontario victims without compensation. Her reply was something to the effect that there were consultations and that in the end Ontario decided that a package was acceptable and Ontario agreed to sign. That's the gist of her comment in Hansard.

Can you tell us why last week your position was that the agreement with the federal Liberal government was okay even though it left 30,000 victims uncompensated and now you've changed your position? Can you tell us the change in mood that you've undergone here?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The agreement to cover that 1986 to 1990 period of time is acceptable to this government. It was in response to the federal lawyers who had presented that proposal to us, and we found, for that 1986 to 1990 period, that agreement acceptable. However, I think as you have pointed out, while that agreement deals with a segment of those affected with hepatitis C, others were left out of that particular agreement, which can stand quite nicely on its own to deal with that.

On the other hand, I think a number, including our Minister of Health and ministers of health across the country, have expressed concern about two things: ongoing health care costs for all of those infected pre-1986 with hepatitis C and, secondly, compensation costs as well. So while the lawyers can argue the differentiation, we quite frankly think a victim in Ontario is a victim, and we're there to help them all.

Mr Hampton: I wish your government had taken that position 10 days ago. I wish your Minister of Health had taken that position 10 days ago. All of those victims who have been excluded by your agreement with the federal Liberal government would have been much further ahead now and we all would have been much further ahead if you'd taken that position originally.

But I want to be very clear: The Krever commission recommended that without delay the provinces and territories devise statutory no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products. You've changed your position, so I want to be clear on your position. Are you giving us your word today that this package is going to be based on compassion? Can we have your word that this is not about legal liability or narrow rules of legal liability, but that it will be compensation to the victims of a public health disaster based on compassion and understanding? Could we have your word on that?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know why you're talking about legal liability. If all I did was listen to the lawyers, I wouldn't have made the statement and the announcement that I made today. Of course it is on compassionate grounds of people who through no fault of their own, as pointed out by Mr Justice Krever, have been infected with hepatitis C. There will be other legal challenges, and the lawyers can fight that out. There will be intergovernmental battles between our government in the provinces and the federal government.

In the meantime, we have come forward so that victims, I think as was Krever's wish, do not have to wait for that intergovernmental wrangling which undoubtedly will go on and the discussions among the lawyers which will undoubtedly go on.

Mr Hampton: Premier, there are a couple of words I didn't hear, though. The words I wanted to hear were the words that I quoted you from Mr Justice Krever, and those words are, "...devise a statutory no-fault scheme for compensating persons who suffer serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products." I didn't hear "statutory no-fault," so let me try again.

I want to be assured that any compensation your government would be in favour of would not at the same time or in some other way take away benefits that victims might otherwise receive. For example, I want to be assured that someone who receives compensation wouldn't at another end of the scale lose Trillium drug benefits or wouldn't at the other end of the scale lose social assistance benefits.

I want to be assured by you, Premier, that we're talking here about compensation for tainted blood, and that compensation for tainted blood will not be offset by taking away Trillium drug benefits or taking away social assistance benefits or other benefits that these people who have suffered a great deal might be entitled to. Can you give us that assurance?

Hon Mr Harris: You lawyers can argue all the technicalities you want. We have put our money on the table in a compassionate way to all victims of hepatitis C. I see nothing in our offer that takes away from any of the other provincial programs, including the ones you mentioned.

CASINO NIAGARA

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier, the politician who didn't want to have anything to do with gambling revenues during the last election campaign. Your government awarded a $500-million casino contract in Niagara Falls without first conducting a rigorous and comprehensive background check on the principals chosen for the consortium. Your chief casino regulator, Duncan Brown, is reported to have said that while preliminary background checks were conducted, no in-depth checks are done until the contract is signed.

A half-million-dollar contract involving the operation of a casino which will make hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits must have a squeaky-clean, extremely thorough, above-the-board process. Premier, why did your government select a preferred proponent for the Niagara Falls casino amid so much fanfare before conducting a meticulous and thorough background check of all partners in the chosen consortium?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations can respond.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, Ontario has the toughest gaming regulations of almost any jurisdiction in the world. Clearly, what the member is referring to is an article from the Star. I must say that yes, preliminary background checks have been done by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. I might refer the member to the same article which he's really getting his information from, which indicates - and I don't usually like quoting from the Star, but I will - "The Star has interviewed two of the three other bidders in the Niagara Falls contest.

"Both said they felt they were put under a microscope by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission during the bidding process and did not at the time feel that the checks were preliminary."

Those were preliminary checks. The process which has been in place is that once contracts have been signed, a far more extensive, more comprehensive check will take place. The assurance is that if any of the people who applied for any particular position whatsoever in the gaming field don't pass the litmus test, they will not participate.

Mr Bradley: I remember my friend Al Palladini being at the official announcement, my pal Al, and the member for Niagara Falls. There was a lot of fanfare and there was supposed to be a lot of good news, and now we find out that some of the people involved in the consortium may not have the best possible background. I don't know that, but a thorough check hasn't been made on these individuals.

That gets me to worry about your new Mike Harris gambling halls, the so-called charity casinos that you want to force on communities across the province to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to draw all the discretionary funds out of the community, preying upon the most vulnerable people, the most desperate people and the addicted people in those communities with your new gambling initiatives.

Minister, will you not now admit that the process you have in place is simply inadequate and that you're so busy rushing ahead to get these new gambling revenues to make up for the loss of revenue from the tax cut that you gave for the rich that you've done a bad job of this particular process?

1500

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let me speak a moment about process here. To the credit of the NDP government when they brought in the casino at Windsor -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, listen to this. They at least brought in a process to screen people.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Unfortunately, during that interval, the member for Ottawa West was saying sarcastically, "Why don't you give credit to the socialists for doing something right?" Well, I am. They did. At least when they brought in the casinos in Windsor they brought in a regulatory function that screened people properly. The Liberal government of Peterson brought in the three-day roving casinos at which there was absolutely no screening available at all. At least something has been done.

The reason for this, and in fact you alluded to the charity gaming clubs, is that the police have said they need the ability to regulate these properly. This is all part of regulation monitoring. This is our function, to assure the people of Ontario of integrity in the gaming area in Ontario. This is what this is all about. I assure you, anyone who doesn't pass this litmus test of integrity will not participate whatsoever.

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also for the Premier. Premier, you and your government talk a good line about jobs, and I expect you'll do that tomorrow in the budget. But when it comes to what your government actually does, we see something quite different. For example, last week we found that your government had purchased some hats in China and then out of embarrassment you tried to rip the labels out. You were quoted: "Harris said he wasn't ashamed the hats came from China. He said the best quality at the best price is what free enterprise is all about."

Premier, we've done some research. We've discovered you could have had the hats purchased here in Ontario for a better price. In fact, the hats that we found are made by CCM. Maybe you've heard of CCM? Canadian Cycle and Motor Co. You could have had them produced here in Ontario for a lower price. I'm going to hand out one of these hats to each of the members of your caucus today, Premier.

My question to you is simply this: Would you please explain to the workers in Ontario why competitive Ontario products are not good enough for your government? Would you please explain that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister wants to respond and I'll give him an opportunity on the supplementary. The minister will respond I'm sure with how proud we are of Ontario industry and business and how much value added Ontario component there is to the initial order of hats that were available for the launch.

But let me say this: Your former leader and Premier of this province went to China to promote trade with China, and now you're telling me we should never buy anything from China. There was Bob Rae in China saying: "It's time to open up to free trade with the globe. That's how we'll benefit. That's the jobs. That's the growth. That's the prosperity." Now you come to us and say, "Oh, but don't ever buy anything that might come from China."

We need to know, are you in favour of global free trade, are you in favour of your Premier and your former leader going to China, or did he just go over there at taxpayers' expense to have a good trip?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'll be very interested in hearing the reaction to the Premier's response by the company that's located in Mr Arnott's riding that produced these hats, because I don't think they're going to be very pleased with your answer, Premier.

The reality is that this comes back down to the way in which you are going about creating jobs and the impact your tax cut is having or not having on job creation. Every day we are not only hearing from ordinary Ontarians that they don't see the benefits of the tax cuts, but we also continue to hear from economists that there's little or no effect on jobs as a result of your tax cut.

The headline in the Toronto Sun today quoting the Bank of Montreal economist says, "Tax Cut Bad Move, Banker Says." Today's Globe and Mail quotes Paul Darby, director of forecasting at the Conference Board of Canada, and he says, "I find the whole argument specious...," that is, the whole argument about the link between tax cuts and job creation.

Your tax scheme has taken billions out of health care, education and other social services and you haven't fooled anyone into thinking it's creating jobs. There's still time to stop the presses and admit your phoney tax scheme isn't working. Will you do that, Premier?

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): What do you suggest? What does the mayor of Buffalo say?

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, would you come to order, please? Thank you very much. If you'd sit up straighter too, I could see you while you're heckling, as well.

Hon Mr Harris: I was very interested on Friday to hear your leader and Sid Ryan saying that the only jobs being created in Ontario were $6-an-hour jobs, as I was on my way to Chrysler where 1,000 new jobs, well-paying jobs, were being created in this province of Ontario. Nortel is announcing new jobs, Babcock and Wilcox is announcing new jobs, all of them full-time, permanent, high-paying and I might add tax-paying jobs as well in Ontario.

I want to tell you this: Absolutely every economist, including some of those academic, left-wing economists, has said that the economy in Ontario, as a result of the government actions - they may credit other things too, but this government's actions: tax cuts to create jobs, regulations to streamline the process, investor confidence, that that is why in just under three years Ontario went from the brink of bankruptcy under you and the Liberals to leading this nation and in fact leading North America.

Mr Hampton: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think the Bank of Montreal will be offended to learn that they are left-wing economists.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. As a member of the Legislature concerned with women's issues, I wondered if you could provide me and the members of this House with information on the program Partners for Change and its role in the community.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): To the member for Durham-York and to members in the House, the Partners for Change program began almost immediately after we became the government.

From time to time, I think all of us are giving names or people come to us to want to make changes. At the Ontario women's directorate, we invited people to become part of this group. We are still doing that. At this point in time, there are 73 women who are active to advise the government on two issues that are important to us, more so I suppose than others, and that is stopping the violence and women's economic independence.

I should say that for very small amounts of government money, these members, and women in particular, have levered millions of dollars in advertising. For instance, two of the projects we most recently made announcement on here in this House were the Peace Break ads to support us and help us as we try to get information out during Sexual Assault Prevention Month, the You Oughta Know program and another one called Women Entrepreneurs: Making a Difference. Both of these are just some of the projects these partners assist us with in getting the message out and being full partners, not only in their advice but in their money.

1510

Mrs Munro: I received an invitation recently regarding their recognition and I wonder if you could give us information about that.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think this is for all members of the Legislative Assembly in that I don't think we celebrate success enough in Ontario, and we certainly don't celebrate the advancement of women in business enough. This last question was a good indication. Women account for more than 50% of the startups in business and create more jobs. In fact, they're responsible in Canada for 1.6 million jobs, new jobs of women entrepreneurs who stay in business for a long time.

Some of our partners will be having a reception to help celebrate. It's on May 12 from 5:30 to 7:30 in room 230 of this Legislative Building. Many of the members, from all parties, attended last year. I hope you will write this down and help us celebrate some of these successes in Ontario on behalf of women who are helping us in our work.

RURAL AND NORTHERN PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week, in response to a question from my colleague the member for Port Arthur about the $36.4 million your government is supposed to be using for recruiting and retaining physicians in undersupplied areas, you said, "The money is there, it's ready to go; we're simply waiting for people to take us up on the offer."

The real problem with getting this program going lies with you. It lies in the way you've crafted the virtually impossible terms and criteria for doctors to buy into. Instead of providing a critical mass of doctors in a community to maximize access to physicians' services and minimize physician stress, you insist on the bare minimum. Instead of setting a salary for rural and northern physicians above the provincial average, you decreed that it has to be the average.

It's not working. My question to you is: Will you please commit to the House today that you will change the criteria and meet with representatives from the chamber -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Sudbury, please. Minister.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I would just repeat part of what I said last week. As you know, there is $36.4 million available per year to deal with the issue of underfunding and the shortage of doctors. Our government has taken more steps than any other government in an attempt to address this issue. I would say to you that if people are not satisfied with the complement as it has been determined, they have the opportunity to present the Ministry of Health with additional information. The money is there. If they feel the complement is too low, they can provide us with additional information in order to increase that complement of physicians. Presently there are 29 areas that are eligible for this funding. Only one has signed, five have indicated an interest and we haven't heard from the rest.

Mr Bartolucci: That should tell you that your criteria are impossible. People in underserviced and understaffed areas would be flocking to your ministry if the criteria were acceptable. I have two points. Will you commit today, first, to ensure that the $36.4 million per year for each year of three years will be committed by your government to this? Second, we have representatives in the gallery, both inside and outside the House today, who want to meet with you, representatives from the chamber, representatives from municipalities, representatives from FONOM and NOMA, and representatives of family physicians. Will you meet with them today, and will you guarantee that $36.4 million is committed, not for one year, not for two years, but for three years?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you know, I have met with many of these groups already. I am quite prepared to meet with them again. I had personally made a commitment to them that we would continue to resolve any of the issues that were creating some difficulties for them. But I would again remind you that we are quite prepared to look at extenuating circumstances. We would encourage them to provide us with additional information if they feel the complement is not appropriate.

I would also indicate that of the 69 doctors who were recruited last year, we were able to ensure that 62 went to northern Ontario. This government has done more than any other government to address the shortage of the doctors in the north, and we will continue to work with all the stakeholders in order to ensure that the appropriate complement is there.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have another question for the Premier. Last week you acknowledged that Bob Runciman did the right thing in stepping aside pending a police investigation. A criminal investigation is now under way, and we understand that that investigation will also focus on the conduct of your staff. We understand, for example, that Guy Giorno and Deb Hutton told people in the media that they wrote the throne speech, so this investigation will be of people on your staff.

I have really two questions: Why is Bob Runciman the only one taking the fall here, and when will you do the right thing and insist that your own staff, the people who wrote the throne speech, take unpaid leave while this investigation is under way?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the government's position has been pretty clear. I appreciate the member's advice.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you might want simply to cast this aside, but I don't think that happens. I want to quote Mr Runciman himself, when he said in the Legislature on November 23, 1992:

"I'd like to think that if my executive assistant, for example, was accused of criminal activity, I would secure my office. I wouldn't allow my executive assistant to go in and rifle the files a few hours before the police launch their official investigation."

Can you tell us what you've done to secure the files in your office and to secure any other information in your office that the RCMP might be interested in in connection with this investigation?

Hon Mr Harris: The RCMP is satisfied.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. A group of citizens from my riding in Huron county have formed an organization which focuses on issues of water quality along Lake Huron. This partnership includes the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, local citizens, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and municipal governments. The preliminary studies indicate that although there was minimal bacteria during the testing months, there was E coli with antibiotic immunities in the lake, coming from a variety of sources. Can you please inform individuals in my riding who are concerned about this issue what your ministry is doing to help clean up Lake Huron and the Great Lakes as a whole?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'd like to thank the honourable member for her question. She has, of course, relayed the concerns of many of the people in her riding with regard to this very serious problem. That is why this particular group, I understand, was formed last year, and they particularly pointed at the agricultural community for creating these water quality problems.

A multi-stakeholder group called SOLVE, Save Our Lake Value Environment, which includes my ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, local Huron county municipalities, conservation authorities, the Huron county health unit and Huron's Edge, was formed last fall and commissioned to study a design to quantify where these bacterial sources were coming from. The final report of this study is expected to be released very soon, May 12, and we hope to learn from those results.

Mrs Johns: Minister, I know that this problem is not exclusive to Lake Huron. In fact, all the Great Lakes should be concerned about this issue. As a result of our concerns, my community will be approaching the Great Lakes Commission on Wednesday of this week. Will you please inform us what the ministry is doing to promote good environmental management practices and how the Ministry of the Environment agenda and activities coordinate with our partners in the municipal and federal governments, the environment organizations, conservation authorities and agricultural communities to achieve better water quality in our Great Lakes?

Hon Mr Sterling: Governments at all levels are trying to balance the environmental concerns and the existence of agricultural operations that are key to the economy of our rural municipalities. That is why my ministry is supportive of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, and I'm pleased to say that more and more farmers are signing on to this coalition.

The coalition has been working on the development of a provincially applied nutrient management planning strategy. My ministry is working along with a number of other government agencies to assist this nutrient management committee. My ministry continues to observe, as well as working on the general problem, a number of significant water quality impacts from things like manure spills. As in the past, we are continuing with enforcement activities, including laying of charges, pursuing abatement approaches as appropriate.

I would like to point out that the Great Lakes are healthier now than they ever have been in the last 25 years, but there is more work to do and we're going to be there doing it.

1520

ONTARIO HYDRO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Energy. In the darkest hours of that horrific ice storm in January of this past winter, both you, as Minister of Energy, and senior officials at Ontario Hydro promised the people of eastern Ontario that Ontario Hydro would be conducting a post-mortem to look at, among other things, Ontario Hydro's emergency preparedness and its communication policy.

Can you tell the people of eastern Ontario today, four months after the ice storm, if you have seen or received a copy of the Ontario Hydro post-mortem, and if you have, can you indicate what it says, particularly on those abovementioned subjects?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I appreciate the question from the honourable member and would say that I have not seen a final copy of a post-mortem that Ontario Hydro and the government of Ontario have promised to the people of eastern Ontario and to all of us.

I lived through, as a political assistant, the horrendous 1985 tornado we had through the Barrie area and through my part of the province in Simcoe county. A post-mortem was done by a number of agencies, including Emergency Measures Ontario, Ontario Hydro, the Solicitor General's office, the health ministry, local health departments, municipal policing etc. That is the process we're going through at this time. Ontario Hydro is one part of that process. We have had a number of discussions along the way, and as soon as the document is available, it will be fed into the emergency measures process, their post-mortem that's under way. I have had a few discussions today with Dr Young, the province's chief coroner, and all of this will come together in the fullness of time. We're eager to get these documents out when they are produced, just as soon as they are produced.

Mr Conway: A post-mortem was promised to the people of eastern Ontario; 80,000 or more of those people literally froze in the dark through the rural counties, and they expect that you and the chair of Hydro are going to be as good as your word and that they are going to see a copy of that post-mortem.

Specifically, they want me to ask you this: If nothing else changes, are you, the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro, prepared to promise the rural people of eastern Ontario that we will soon see an end to the communications policy that Ontario Hydro employed through the ice storm and otherwise, leaving everyone calling an emergency centre in Markham, which, as I said earlier, was shown to be completely satisfactory? Will you commit that Ontario Hydro will be forced to change its communications strategy and that there will be a much more local regional base so that Hydro customers in eastern Ontario won't ever again be forced to do what they were forced to do during that ice storm?

Hon Mr Wilson: I appreciate, in the honourable member's answer, his appreciation of the hard work and in fact the human miracle that occurred over a three-week period of time to get the lights back on in eastern Ontario, where 40% of the power grid was on the ground.

Hydro lines in North America, the big 500-kilovolt lines, are built to withstand 15 centimetres of ice. There were 75 centimetres of ice. It indeed was the storm of the century and perhaps the storm of several lifetimes, and we owe a great deal to all of those workers - local utility workers and hydro workers from Ontario Hydro - working with the army and all levels of government and service agencies to get the lights back on.

When I was there for a number of days during the ice storm, we were all very concerned about local communications. I agree with the honourable member that that's something that can be improved. We're looking to improve and I know Ontario Hydro is looking to improve local communications. People were extremely generous. No one was selfish. All they simply wanted to know was when the power would be restored in their area. It's a reasonable request and we're going to do our best -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

RURAL AND NORTHERN PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to go back to the $36.4 million that remained unspent in last year's budget and which we still have no assurance of spending in the next two years.

Minister, you said in your answer to my colleague's question earlier that you would be happy to listen to a presentation from those who are concerned: those who are representing municipalities but also the physicians. I'd like to call your attention to a letter that was sent to you on January 9 from Dr Michael Sylvester on behalf of the group, entitled "Towards a New Vision for Globally Funded Group Practice Agreements," which details exactly what the problems are with the proposed agreements that your ministry keeps trying to force on people.

My question to you is, don't you read your mail or don't you get your mail? The reality is that you have a very thorough presentation on what is wrong with those agreements and there is no excuse for you and your ministry not to get that $36.4 million out the door.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As I indicated before, we are anxious to work with the individuals who are experiencing difficulties, but I think I need to again stress the fact that out of the 29 communities that are entitled to money from this funding, only one has completed a contract with the ministry up until this time. Five are in discussion.

Again, if there is some concern about some of the terms, we have indicated our willingness to work with them and they have an opportunity to present us with additional information.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, that isn't good enough. It isn't good enough for those communities that remain underserviced. It isn't good enough for the physicians who have told you exactly what the problem is with your template and why there are not more agreements being signed. It's no satisfaction to the 32 northern communities that are underserviced or the 43 underserviced communities in southern Ontario, all of which are looking to you for leadership in dealing with this issue.

We know that the fee-for-service system does not work in terms of attracting and maintaining physicians in underserviced areas. You have stood up here and told us how proud you are of the progress you've made, yet you also tell us you've only succeeded in negotiating one contract.

Minister, that's not leadership. It's about time you started paying attention to the people who know what is going to work. When are you going to do that? When are you going to actually provide the funding that will ensure that these communities are not underserviced?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would again remind the member opposite that we have made tremendous progress recently. We have proceeded further along in this area of underserviced communities than any other government. I would remind you that 62 of 69 doctors recruited have gone to the north.

I would also indicate to you that I can appreciate what it is you're saying. I am advised that my staff have already spoken to Dr Sylvester, and we will continue to work with these individuals in order that we can assure that the appropriate services are provided to people in these underserviced areas.

1530

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, you know it is getting to the holiday season; you know it's about gasoline. I think there are a lot of people in Ontario who worry about the price of gasoline, particularly on long weekends.

I know the prices are very volatile and I know you have had some discussion with this before. What are you doing to monitor that on behalf of the province of Ontario this summer?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As you know, last year I tabled a resolution calling on the federal Liberals to take some steps to investigate gas pricing. Sadly, the Liberals in this House chose not to vote for this resolution, and unfortunately I had to go to the conference without having the resolution of this House. However, at last year's conference that the concerned ministers attended, we were able to force the federal Liberal government to create a working group made up of consumers, government officials and also representatives to address the issues surrounding this issue.

I also met with both the independent gas dealers and industry members and indicated our concern for the Ontario consumer with respect to the volatility of gas prices. Once again, on April 21, I met with the industry and I indicated to them at that time that the volatility of gas prices will not be tolerated. I made it very clear that our government will closely monitor what happens in the industry.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's it. That's the answer.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Rollins: The small independent gasoline stations throughout the province have taken a bad beating in the last little while. A lot of them have been closing. Is that a concern of you and your ministry, to make sure that those small retailers still stay in business?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's always been our contention, and has been the contention both of the previous NDP government and also the Liberal government when they formed the government in the province, that this was a federal issue and that the Liberals in Ottawa should certainly take the lead. Sadly, that has not been the case.

The small independent dealers in the province are feeling the pinch. Clearly this new policy of the federal Liberal government in which they are indicating they're going to impose another tax upon the people of Ontario for oil spillage, and making this retroactive, is going to have an end result of about 3,000 of these independent dealers either filing for bankruptcy or laying off people. This is clearly another tax on the economy of the province of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There was a din of noise around when the minister was trying to speak, and I was wondering whether he said he was bringing in a provincial predatory pricing bill to prevent the gouging of these poor independents in Ontario. Did you hear that or didn't you?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is not a point of order.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition from 91 constituents in my riding. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

TUITION FEES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition that is signed by 15,000 university and college students in the province of Ontario, demanding a tuition fee freeze. It was provided to me by Wayne Poirier of the Canadian Federation of Students this morning. It says as follows:

"Whereas tuition fees have risen by more than 140% over the past 10 years; and

"Whereas the increases in the cost of living have stayed at 2% per year or less since 1986, while tuition has increased anywhere from 7% to 20% per year; and

"Whereas high tuition fees are a barrier to accessing post-secondary education, especially among students from low-income backgrounds, students with parental responsibilities and students with special needs; and

"Whereas students are now paying in excess of 40% of the operating costs of universities and colleges; and

"Whereas the quality of education, due in part to the erosion of facilities and the increasing of class sizes, has deteriorated;

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate tuition freeze."

I'm happy to sign my name in agreement to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a petition from Knights of Columbus council 6361 in Bowmanville, such members as Corry Van Lith, Ken Boone, Frank Lee and others, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, illness or injury and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

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

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition that's signed by a number of residents from Belle River, Woodslee and Essex.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I've affixed my signature to this.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, who's the national health and safety director of CAW Canada, signed by a members of that union from diverse communities such as Windsor, Brampton, Hamilton, Cambridge - virtually right across the province. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I proudly add my name to those of these workers.

1540

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition here signed by a number of Ontarians. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"Whereas this bill will:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Protect teachers and staff from civil liability;

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

"To pass into law the Safe Schools Act, 1998, as quickly as possible."

I have signed my name to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by hundreds of constituents who are very concerned about the provision of long-term-care services in Thunder Bay, northwestern Ontario and the province. They're still very concerned because of the announcement last week which was woefully inadequate in terms of the provision of long-term beds in the next eight years. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Thunder Bay and district are suffering from serious deterioration in our health care system because of the closing of hospital beds before community services and long-term-care facilities are available,

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make it an urgent priority to provide more long-term-care services in the home and to provide a sufficient number of long-term-care institutional beds and staff in order to restore the standards of health care to an acceptable level."

I'm very pleased to sign my name to that petition.

ABORTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that's signed by a number of residents who live in the regional municipality of Sudbury. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition that is signed by many people in York region. It relates to chiropractic services. It reads in part:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I'm pleased to add my name to this petition.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"We are very concerned about the Red Cross pay equity issue. We are asking the three party leaders to put people before politics and come together in a non-partisan effort to resolve the homemakers' services pay equity problem.

"The legislation affects Red Cross differently than any other provider of homemaker services in Ontario and makes it impossible for the society to compete on a level playing field."

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

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by workers from all over the province of Ontario - Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My petition today is from the people of North York, Don Mills and Thornhill. What it's talking about is health care workers and ethical standards. Part of the petition urges us:

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

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is trying to impose so-called charity casinos on 44 communities across Ontario as a vehicle to make profits from gambling for government coffers; and

"Whereas these gambling halls will bleed from the communities on which they are imposed the discretionary dollars which might otherwise be spent on goods and services; and

"Whereas the Harris government is attempting to bribe cash-strapped municipalities to accept the new gambling halls by promising to pay a so-called administration fee to operate slot machines in the casinos; and

"Whereas the Harris government is attempting to coerce municipalities into accepting the new 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week gambling halls by suggesting that charities may not receive funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Mike Harris government to halt the imposition of new gambling halls, so-called charity casinos, on communities across Ontario."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

1550

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to correct my own record. I was just outside talking to someone, and apparently in my question this afternoon to the Minister of Energy - I believe I said that the call centre at Markham was completely unsatisfactory. That's certainly what I meant; I meant unsatisfactory. If it was heard to be "satisfactory," I want to correct the record, because certainly my view and that of my constituents is that the Markham call centre was unsatisfactory, and that's the word I want to make clear is in Hansard.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): With regard to this afternoon's proceedings, I believe we have unanimous consent of all parties to follow this procedure: (1) that the Premier be permitted to move the motion without notice with respect to the hepatitis C compensation; (2) that the time available this afternoon for debate be divided equally among the parties; and (3) that at 5:55 pm the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put the question without further debate, and that if a recorded vote is requested, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes. I believe I would ask unanimous consent for that to be agreed upon.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it agreed? It is agreed.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I would like to move the following resolution:

That the Legislative Assembly support the Ontario government's call for a compensation package for Ontarians who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986, and that pending a resolution of federal liability for the contaminated blood problem, Ontario agree in the interim that such new package be funded by Ontario and the federal government on the same basis as the federal-provincial agreement covering 1986 to 1990.

I'll speak briefly, because I think a number of members from all parties will want to speak today. I think the motion is pretty straightforward and stands on its own. We have also communicated this motion by way of press release today, and I think there is an understanding across the province among other legislatures and indeed the federal government that through the cooperation of this Legislature this motion is being facilitated to be debated and voted upon today.

I want to say that following Mr Justice Krever's report, a thorough examination, I think, over the period of a few years - it was day after day; I don't think anybody felt that his examination was anything less than thorough and exhaustive - he made some recommendations to the Red Cross, to the federal government and to the provincial governments as to how, in his view, given all the evidence he had heard, hepatitis C victims ought to be treated within Canada, both from a health care point of view and from a compensation point of view. It was his hope and his wish and his desire and his recommendation that the issue of compensation would be one that could be dealt with without the courts and having to go through the legal system.

I think the federal government and the provincial governments, through their ministers of health across the country, with the very best of intentions, began to tackle this issue. I might add that this is not a simple issue; it is complicated. I respect that. I respect the fact that lawyers will have given a substantial amount of advice on the implications of 1986 and pre-1986 and will have provided lots of legal opinions and lots of cautions. I can tell you, were I to follow all those, I would not be introducing this motion today and we would not be debating it.

This is an issue that goes beyond lawyers and legal obligations and Krever's recommendations. This is an issue of people who, through no fault of their own, are facing a great deal of difficulty, of hardship, of uncertainty, and we have been asked to respond to this by Krever. We have been asked by our constituents and we have been asked, of course, by the victims to do the right thing.

When the ministers came together, the decision they reached post-1986 really was a collective offer to be made to those victims of hepatitis C who contracted it post-1986 for that 1986-90 period. The issue was not closed. It had not been formally accepted. It may not have been accepted by anybody or it may have been accepted by some and not others. This notion that somehow or other the issue was closed is simply not true. Even for that period of time, to those people who contracted hepatitis C, it was an offer made in genuine good faith by the provinces and by the federal government.

We do not believe, and it's not integral to this motion and this resolution because I think the matter of federal and provincial governments arguing about who should pay - this is a debate that goes on ad infinitum: health care costs; the sharing of it; taxes; who has the ability to pay for what, who doesn't; who has responsibility, who doesn't; who has jurisdiction, who doesn't. Clearly what I have found from talking to Ontarians is that they don't care - that's between governments. It's all their money. They're taxpayers, they are citizens here in Ontario, and they want the federal and provincial governments to work together on these issues. They don't like the arguing back and forth, one government to another.

None the less, clearly there is a fundamental disagreement here among the provincial ministers of health, the provincial ministers of finance and the provincial Premiers, and the federal Minister of Health and the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada. There is a fundamental disagreement on who is funding health care at what level and who needs to be held accountable.

There is also a fundamental disagreement on pre-1986 compensation. This is not something that's new, this isn't a new announcement by this government. When the previous deal was arrived at that dealt with post-1986 which we were asked to respond to by the federal lawyers and the federal government and the federal Minister of Health, immediately the issue became, "All right, what about this group that was left out of that deal?" That has been on the table, certainly for the hepatitis C victims across Canada, certainly for those in Ontario, certainly for our Minister of Health and for our government.

Here is where we had a difference, and it was very clear to us over the weekend that there was a marked difference: One government felt the file was closed - "Thank you very much, we've satisfied the lawyers and the legal obligation" - and yet across the country, the government of Quebec, ourselves in Ontario, and British Columbia, and certainly representatives of various governments all across the country said: "Wait a second, this file's not closed. There is a group who was referenced, certainly in Krever's report and in Krever's study, and there is a group who through no fault of their own are not covered by that existing agreement."

We believe the offer by Ontario that we're putting forward today, and by way of resolution taking to the federal government, will break the logjam across the country. We are confident it will do that. The last thing in the world we want to do is go alone. We are very hopeful that there will be constructive dialogue. We are very hopeful that at the very minimum, the terms and conditions of the 1986-90 agreement are being extended to those infected with hepatitis C pre-1986. We are putting what we believe - we don't know the dollars precisely, but we are making that offer to parallel that agreement. We estimate the dollars are $100 million to $200 million, depending on circumstances and how serious the situations are and how many come forward within Ontario.

I was asked today, and I do not for a minute believe we will end up in this position: "What happens if we're all alone? What happens if there is no federal government?" Our offer will stand. The offer that we've put on the table, if matched by the federal government, will parallel the previous agreement for 1986-90. Those who will know, by way of compensation it works out to about 30% of the compensation money. You will also be aware that the provinces are picking up 100% of the health care dollars when there is liability or fault. In the case of WCB or insurance companies, we expect to recover those costs, if there is somebody that is liable.

1600

Clearly we have been named as potentially liable for part. The Red Cross, as I indicated at the start, is liable. Unfortunately for victims there is not a substantial amount of compensation available there. So it does fall quite practically, if not legally, on the federal government and on the provincial government.

We will, perish the thought, if we go alone, make that offer. We will proceed with what will amount to about 30% of the compensation as Ontario's share. We will do everything we can, both through legal action and otherwise, to recover on behalf of the hepatitis C victims the other 70% that we believe is theirs.

The package to date in estimated costs is $2.7 billion - $1.9 billion from the provinces. That's made up of $1.6 billion in health care costs and $300 million in compensation, and $800 million from the federal government - $1.9 billion from the provinces, $800 million from the federal government.

I say to the federal government, if you look at the evidence that is before us, and the lawyers can argue - I'm not supposed to get into the legal arguments, but if you look at the evidence that has been presented, clearly there is a liability on the federal government at least equal to the liability among the provinces. That is my own view, that is not a legal view, from the evidence that has been presented and from what I believe Mr Justice Krever has put forward.

I call on the federal government and I call on the other provinces. I'm prepared to say this: Even with, pre-tomorrow anyway, a $5-billion deficit in the province of Ontario - there may be some other provinces that would find this monetarily beyond their reach and I say that is up to the federal government to respond to. This is a Canadian problem. The federal government has the lead there. We have responded to their lead. They have failed to move forward with a second, equally as important, part of this package for those victims with hepatitis C.

I am confident that unanimous action and resolution of this in a non-partisan way from all in this House can assist in, as I say, breaking that logjam and bringing the federal government to accept its responsibility. I close with this: I invite and welcome assistance from all members of the Legislature, from all sides of the House, in helping us with this effort. But I have to say, if it is legal action, we are prepared to proceed legally with any means we can find at our disposal - we have lawyers both inside and outside of government looking at that now - if that is required, particularly if it's required to get the assistance that should come as well from the federal government to those victims of hepatitis C, not only in the province of Ontario but indeed across this country.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is indeed a pleasure, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party, to rise and support the idea and the concept that we believe are the core of the resolution here today, which is very simply, without the legalese to be found in the resolution itself, that the people who were infected, who were poisoned by the official blood system in this country, deserve, in the words of Horace Krever, "compensation without distinction"; whether it be AIDS or HIV infection or whether it be hepatitis C, that there is no legal, moral or other basis to make a distinction between them.

We also see in this resolution, at the core, a very important principle, one raised in this House last week by Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, that it certainly would not be sufficient for this Legislature to simply recognize the need for full and fair compensation but that there had to be action on the part of this Legislature, and particularly on the part of the government, to put forward the funds necessary to enable a response. So we welcome that distinction, I think, which is in this resolution today and which makes it the basis possible for our support.

It is extremely important that we try, on behalf of blood victims in Ontario and indeed across the country, not to make this look like a political football that has been tossed from partisan politician to partisan politician, which I'm afraid it already has the aspect of. Meanwhile, people who suffer from the blood-tainted transfusions, whichever disease, have been waiting. They have waited three years for the Krever inquiry. They have waited as many as 12 years since the point of their infection. So it is with a very, very strong sense that this is an issue which we're called upon, in our duty as elected officials - not so much as party members and not so much as people with conspicuous axes to grind - to do right by the people who have been affected in that fashion.

We look forward to this not being a wrinkle in the ongoing ping-pong game between various versions of "He said," and "She said," but rather, instead, something that will stay true to that basic principle that it is time the victims became front and centre to this debate. It's time that the people, the Jeremy Beatys, the other people who find themselves through no fault of their own unable to depend upon the system that anyone in this Legislature, indeed anyone in the province, could come to depend on: the blood system, the transfusions you receive in hospital and the other emergency medical services we have in this province.

It is vital, I think, that we keep that in front of us, that in the spirit of this resolution we not concern ourselves overly much with words like "pending resolution of federal liability." We know in this House the Ontario government is named on every lawsuit, in every legal action concerning these matters. There is liability in this House and on the part of us as representatives, on the part of the government and the people of Ontario. We choose not to focus on, to dwell on what singling out the federal government in this resolution may mean, because we believe that the government, in changing its position today, has taken a step that public opinion will not permit any of us to get out from under, and that is that the victims will come first.

Similarly, when we look at words like "interim assistance" or "in the interim" that the funding be provided, we don't think that will be used in a fashion to change the nature of the spirit of this resolution and it won't be used to delay or hold back or get in the way of any potential resolution that could be forthcoming in the days ahead.

1610

It is extremely important for the people of Ontario and indeed for the members of this Legislature that we recognize that certain developments have occurred. What we hear - and I again wish to congratulate the Premier today - are words that the people of Ontario want to hear from their Premier when it comes to a matter such as this. These are the words: that there will be action taken, that the government will support its outlook with responsibility, taking action.

That is extremely important, what we take as the thrust the action which is being taken today. Certainly, to those members of the Ontario public who are infected by hepatitis C, we make that pledge to ensure that this resolution becomes the basis for a solution, that we will engage ourselves vigorously to make sure this is taken up by all levels of government in the spirit we've talked about and that we don't bog down in some of the points which could be taken to be expressly political.

We recognize that the position coming in here was one at least of significant confusion. There were letters written on April 28 where the provincial government expressed its clear satisfaction with what it called a fair and just arrangement. It's very important just to know that what we are talking about today is different; it's talking about a larger arrangement. The Premier calls it a separate arrangement, but it is a substantial change. It is one which we agree with and which we think deserves to be recognized as in the interests of Ontario.

When we look at what needs to be done in future, we realize that now the onus comes on all members of this Legislature to put forward some energy to see this matter to its own resolution. Certainly, those of us particularly concerned with the health field feel very acutely that we have left the people who are victims subject to our due processes, both in legalistic terms, the Krever inquiry, which took such a long time to come to resolution and in the political discussions which have followed. We have tried on a number of occasions, we have had some conversations with the government, we have made our own declaration early in January to look for some means by which, as we said publicly at that time, this could be resolved on a non-partisan basis. Again, the caveats in the resolution notwithstanding, that is the opportunity we see in front of us today.

Justice Krever states on page 1045 of a three-volume report, which took, as I mentioned, many months to put together, "Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified." It is fulsome agreement with that statement that this Legislature is being asked to pass judgement on today, that we cannot justify making distinctions and not making compensation between those who are needy and suffering as a result of this agreement. We would offer to this government our support in being able to make sure that we keep on the road of seeing that hepatitis C victims are front and centre of our considerations, that we don't subject them to any further delay in terms of what can be done.

There's one commentary that we wish to separate ourselves from, from the otherwise fine-to-agree-upon words and positions of the Premier, and that is that somehow we should hold the victims of hepatitis C separately accountable for their access to the health care system. I think if the Premier reflects on that proposition, on that idea - we recognize that isn't tenable, that it really isn't a way to look at this problem, that we would not heretofore, as a result of this resolution, as a result of anything that was signed by the Minister of Health or by the Premier or by the Krever report or by anything else, deny the sufferers of hepatitis C access to the health system.

I am certain, I am absolutely convinced, that in creating that distinction, in itemizing how much money it would cost, this government and this Premier did not wish for us to have any of that kind of inference. But I think the Premier may recognize that it is not fair to single out what we may do through the health system to hepatitis C sufferers, because it has a stigmatizing effect of saying, "You're a burden in that regard."

I think what we're talking about here today when we speak about compensation is really the principle, the effort of trying to make some small gesture on the part of the public, on the part of the governments of this country, to recognize the suffering and hardship that has happened in people's lives. It is distinct from whatever we can offer by way of the health system. It is a gesture we can make, for example, to people I've met, and I won't name them, who have lost responsible positions, who have tried hard to hold on to their slipping abilities, to be able to keep their memory and their mental functions, be able to keep their energy levels up as they experience cirrhosis of the liver and other things, that we recognize this is a distinct experience they have encountered.

They walked into our health facilities with the trust that all of us wish to have in their function, and they were let down. They were let down because of pernicious diseases that we had inadequate understanding of, because of decisions that were made, which the Krever inquiry explicates on behalf of society. But that is separate and distinct from how we might try to deal with people and their disease.

The Premier may be aware, or may wish to be aware, that many of the sufferers of this disease in particular find that distinction around their health care provision to be very hard to take, because what they're looking for, and what I think your resolution today is a step towards providing, is some recognition of their unique pain and suffering as a result of our official system having failed.

We know where these problems came from. We know we have a role. This is not a case of saying, "The government can fix things." Unfortunately, sadly, we cannot fix things. We cannot give back to the people who have suffered hepatitis C poisoning through the blood system normalcy in their lives. That's not within the power or the purview of this government or any government. That's not what we're being asked to do. We are being asked to recognize that their access to employment has been affected; that their ability to maintain a good quality of life has been affected, has been negated in many cases; that the future of their families has been impacted by the potential that each of the sufferers, each of those infected, operates with: to have a potentially fatal disease in terms of the function of their liver, cirrhosis, and potentially liver cancer.

What we want to do, in mentioning some of the severity of that disease, is recognize who has to be central in this discussion. The sufferers and their families deserve from the Legislature of Ontario ultimately nothing less than our respect. When we think of the time they've spent between the time until we get a final resolution and the Krever report itself, we recognize that perhaps that has been in some ways lacking. But we wish to come forward from this point and join in what we think is the only acceptable standard of response: that this Legislature will ensure that all those who have been infected will be responded to in an official fashion, as fairly as we can possibly provide compensation, which will recognize the severity some suffer and others perhaps do not but who will need to have some contingency, because the nature of this disease is such that we can't solve even that limited response we can make tomorrow, because this is a ticking time bomb for many of the people who are infected. We will want to recommend that the principles we believe inform the resolution today survive into the actual arrangements we're going to need.

In the spirit of recognizing what has been said today, we'd like to request of the province some recognition for a group that has been left out, and that is HIV sufferers who have been secondarily infected. We think it is extremely important that the federal government did recognize that class of victim in their compensation. It is missing from the provincial plan and it needs to be addressed.

1620

This is the time, fellow members of the House, for us to try and start anew with the blood system. We have a new Canadian blood system starting in September. We cannot miss the opportunity to put that system on the proper footing, on a basis on which the people who need to depend on it can look forward to an acceptance, not just of liability, but of responsibility on the part of whatever levels of government in this country, because that translates into the confidence to allow people to use the blood system in the first place.

If there really is a legacy, if there really is something to be derived from what has occurred in terms of this episode in Canadian history, when the checks and balances in our legal, political, medical and other systems fail, then it has to be that we won't let something like this happen again, that as small as it may seem to the individual suffering that has taken place, we will make that part of our intent.

Our resolution today is to ensure that the safeguards are in place in the future, that we will never again, should that happenstance occur, despite our very best and reinvigorated efforts to counteract it, should it ever happen that someone is poisoned, we won't put them through the kind of delay, the kind of process that I think has exacerbated the lives and the situations of hep-C and AIDS and HIV sufferers in this country. I think it's extremely important that when we're called upon, as we are today, to make our reckoning on issues like this, we're able to sustain this in as non-partisan a fashion as possible.

I want to conclude by congratulating the Premier on the spirit of his remarks, to offer him our assistance in terms of ensuring that this holds on behalf of the people who are out there who require our response, and how we look forward to making sure that in the shortest period of time possible there is a realistic, fair program to compensate people who have been infected with hepatitis C, regardless of the year in which it happened through the Canadian blood system. We look forward to that being resolved before the advent of the new system. I think that's a challenge everyone in this House can take up, should take up, and for the sake of the society at large must take up.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this resolution this afternoon and to say to the Premier that I am glad this government has come to the realization of the repugnance with which the people of Ontario have watched the jousting between the federal and provincial governments about who should take on the responsibility of ensuring that people infected by hepatitis C through the tainted blood system get the compensation that was ordered by Mr Justice Horace Krever.

When the provincial and federal governments agreed to put this matter over to a royal commission, it was understood that the provinces and the federal government would be committing themselves to follow the kind of recommendations that Mr Justice Horace Krever was making, not only with respect to what was going to happen in the future about a new blood system, but what he was going to recommend in terms of compensation.

We were in government at the time and we were very clear that this was a very complex matter, that it was a matter that needed to be looked at in all its complexity by someone with the integrity and the ability to analyse that we all know is there in Mr Justice Krever. That's why our government was prepared to second Mr Justice Krever to the commission. It was a loss to Ontario because obviously we lost his expertise on our Court of Appeal bench during that period of time, and that was indeed a loss to us. Of course, his salary was paid by the federal government, as all federally appointed justices' salaries are, but it was a real cost and a real sacrifice to us and we were fortunate that we had a person of such integrity.

As we discuss this matter today, it is extremely important that we hear the words of Mr Justice Krever about what should happen with respect to compensation. I quote from that report, which was presented on November 26, 1997:

"It is recommended that, without delay, the provinces and territories devise statutory no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products."

"I am confident that if the recommendations are implemented, the likelihood that the tragedy will happen again will be markedly reduced. But in our hope for the future we must not forget that a...tragedy did occur. It is for that reason that my first recommendation is for compensation for blood-related injuries incurred in the past or that may occur in the future."

Mr Justice Krever was very clear in the rest of his recommendations that there was a shared responsibility between the provinces, the federal government and the Red Cross, and that that shared responsibility was an important recognition if we were going to ensure that this kind of tragedy did not happen in the future.

Actions to incur compensation are often based on the issue that if governments or other responsible parties are required to pay compensation for errors they have made in the past, it may give them a bit of a heads-up. It may ensure that these issues are dealt with effectively in the future. But it also is there because people have suffered. People who in good faith accepted treatments that they were assured were safe, that they were assured might even save their lives, find themselves with life-threatening effects not from the original disease, but from the blood that they received supposedly to resolve that disease status.

Nowhere is this more heartbreaking than for families and those who live with haemophilia, because these are people who over the course of their lifetime are faced with the life-threatening consequences of blood that does not coagulate properly. One of the ways in which that disease has come to be treated is through the administration of blood products.

Many haemophiliacs experience the primary difficulty in their lives because of haemophilia itself. It causes a great deal of distress to those who have to live with that problem. Very often they find that they bleed into their joints, that in order to resolve some of the damage they may end up with fused joints. They are often unable to work because of the energy issues that accompany that disease.

To have on top of that all of the effects of hepatitis C infection creates a very miserable prognosis for those who live with the effects of having received tainted blood. Not only do they have their primary disease to contend with, a problem in and of itself, a lifelong, life-threatening problem, but now they have the added problem of an infection which was introduced to their bodies supposedly through the giving of life-giving blood.

Let us be very clear that when we talk about compensation to those who have suffered as a result of the tainted blood in this country, we are talking about accountability. One of the first things that those who discovered that they had been infected with hepatitis C, with AIDS, or with any other effect from tainted blood want is for those responsible to accept the responsibility: not to quibble, as the lawyers are quibbling, about how much liability they have; not to quibble and argue among themselves, that disgraceful display we saw between the Premier and the Prime Minister last Friday, with the two of them arguing at completely separate events about who was most responsible. That does not help the problem.

1630

We are going to support this motion, but we have some very serious reservations about the way it has been introduced and about the premises that the Premier stated it was based upon.

The Premier in this press release today insisted - as this government has, whether it was Mr Wilson or whether it was Mrs Witmer - on including the health costs as part of a settlement. Anyone who is resident in the province of Ontario is entitled to have their health costs met, according to our programs. For the Premier to claim that Ontario is bearing all the costs for health care for these patients is absolutely wrong. This government is requiring these people, as every other person in the province who may be under the Ontario drug benefit or the Trillium drug plan - and many of these people depend on those plans to have the medications that are required - to pay copayments, to pay user fees. So even his statement that all the drug costs are covered is not true.

It is very serious that we recognize that not only are these people ill, facing the problems that everyone faces when they are ill - of not being able to work, of not being able to give the kind of support to their families that they want to give, of not being able to enjoy life - not only are they experiencing that, but they also of course, because of this government's programs, are having to pay a lot of the costs to keep themselves alive, to keep themselves functioning at whatever level they are able to function.

So when the Premier stands and tells us that the total cost of compensation is $2.7 billion, and of that, $1.6 billion is in health care, let us be really clear what he is trying to do. He is trying to hide the fact that the provinces would be responsible for those health care costs regardless, whatever the situation was. That is not at issue and should never have been at issue in talking about compensation for the damage caused by the carelessness of two levels of government and of the authorities who were providing blood services in this country.

I find it offensive. I am sure that every person living with hepatitis C and who got hepatitis from the tainted blood system is sitting out there shaking their head, saying, "How can this be part of compensation?" This is the reality that every province and territory faces as a result of our agreed health care system, of the Canada Health Act, and it is disgraceful to try and put that as part of the package.

Then when we come to the rest, let us be very clear. The compensatory part of this is $300 million in compensation for the provinces, of which Ontario apparently will have to pay $113 million, and $800 million from the federal government.

If I understood the Premier correctly, the effect of his motion would be that for these people who were infected prior to 1986, and I would tell you after 1990, because there are people who have been infected since 1990, he would be prepared to pay - did I hear him correctly? - 30% of the compensation only, put that up front initially, that in fact he's not talking about fronting up all the money that these people need and deserve, but only 30% of that, pending some decision about where the liability really lies.

What we're really hearing here is that of course this Premier and this Minister of Health have been overwhelmed, as all of us in this House have, by the communications we have received from people in our own communities, overwhelmed by the sadness, by the waste that has occurred because of the policies that allowed tainted blood to be given to hundreds of thousands of people.

It is very clear that public opinion has forced this government into a corner, just as it did with the Dionne quintuplets, just as it has in other areas. To try and maintain their guise of being a compassionate government, a kinder, softer, warmer, cuddlier government, they have had to come to this conclusion that they will go ahead with compensation to some of those who need their help desperately and they will continue to fight it out with the federal government in terms of legalism. That's not very good - it's pretty grudging and it's been a long time coming - but it's better than nothing.

Those who are living with hepatitis C because of tainted blood out in our communities are telling all of us in this Legislature that it's important for us to do something for people like one of my constituents, a sole parent of a young child about five years old, who finds himself in a situation where he has a very seriously enlarged liver. He has become sicker and sicker over the last few years. He is looking at a situation where he now is planning to move so that he and his child will be closer to his remaining family so she can become used to those who will likely have to continue her parenting in a not very long time from now.

His question to me was: "What does it mean? Does it mean the government is guaranteeing me a pot of money that I will be able to set aside for my child's education? Does it mean that I will continue to receive disability benefits to enable us to live together as long as I am able to look after her so that I can feed and clothe her, so we can stay as a family, without having that removed because I have a lump sum of compensation? I'm on ODB, but some of my drugs aren't covered by the ODB so I'm on Trillium for some of those catastrophic drugs. Does it mean I will be able to continue on the ODB and on Trillium so I get the drugs I need, or will I be expected to apply that settlement" - which I understood to be from anywhere between $10,000 and $30,000 a person, depending on how ill they happen to be at the time. "Does that mean that will have to be applied first, that I will have to pay down all my assets?"

He said to me: "I'm not eligible for life insurance. I'm not eligible for disability insurance. I have a pre-existing condition. How am I going to look after this child? How am I going to be able to carry out my responsibility as a parent to this child?"

That's just one story, but there are literally hundreds of people who have those same questions. We don't know the answers, but we do know that the settlement that was agreed to by this health minister and other health ministers across the country is a very legalistic settlement. It requires people to be part of a class action. It requires them to prove to someone's satisfaction what level of need they have, what level of effect it had.

There is no certainty about what the amount will be, there is no certainty that other programs will not stop while those amounts are paid down, and these are questions that this government must answer before it takes any credit for this resolution.

I know there are many in my party who want to respond to this resolution. I will say again that of course we will support it, but what we have in reservations about what it actually means we will continue to talk about, and we will continue to press this government to make the assurances to those who are living with hepatitis C that what is happening here is not another sleight of hand, another shell game. Because if what happens is that the compensation this province is saying it's going to give these people goes to them and then diminishes their right to social assistance, diminishes their right to access to the drugs that they require through either the Ontario drug benefit or the Trillium drug plan, they will simply have shifted dollars they would have had to spend anyway because people are entitled to those dollars and tried to take political credit for having been generous in their effect.

1640

I hope that I am going to hear from the Minister of Health in the next few minutes that these fears are groundless. I hope we're going to hear a clear commitment from the Minister of Health in response to this resolution, that this is not a trick, that this is not an effort to try and curry favour with the voting population, that it is in fact a genuine, compassionate offer from this government to those who have been infected by tainted blood and that it will not turn around and become an albatross around their necks, forcing them to diminish all their resources in what may be the later years of their lives.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to support the resolution that was put forward by our Premier, whereby the Ontario government calls for "a compensation package for Ontarians who were infected with hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986, and that pending a resolution of federal liability for the contaminated blood problem, Ontario agree in the interim that such new package be funded by Ontario and the federal government on the same basis as the federal-provincial agreement covering 1986 to 1990."

I would like to extend my appreciation to our Premier for the leadership that he has demonstrated today in response to the needs of those who were infected with hepatitis C prior to 1986. He is the first Premier to do so.

Since November 1997 we have been dealing with the issues that were presented in the Krever report. There were 50 recommendations contained within the report and, as you know, our government has carefully analysed and reviewed the information contained therein.

As a result of our analysis, we remain committed today to the federal-provincial-territorial agreement to offer $1.1 billion to those infected with hepatitis C through the blood system between 1986 and 1990. However, our resolution today takes us further in that we are prepared to provide the financial assistance as well to those individuals who were infected with hepatitis C through the blood system prior to 1986.

During the discussions that took place at the provincial, territorial and federal levels it was our government that urged that haemophiliacs be included within any package. We were extremely pleased that at the end of the day they were included within the original package, and it would be our intention that they would continue to be included now in the package prior to 1986. Also, we were pleased that those secondarily infected by HIV through the blood system were included in the original package.

I've had an opportunity to meet with many of the families and individuals who have been impacted and who have been infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply. I think all of us who have had meetings with those individuals, and I've heard the other two parties speak as well, have certainly been moved by the experiences that have been relayed to us.

That's why we have come to the conclusion we arrived at last week, that we would call on the federal government to include providing financial assistance to those individuals not only within the window package of 1986 to 1990, but also those who were infected prior to 1986. Today our Premier has indicated very, very eloquently and spoken very forcefully of the need for these people to receive our help, and the indication of our government to provide that help to them.

I think it's important, however, to also remember the commitment that our government has made to health care in this province. It's important to remember that our government has increased its share of financial assistance to the health system in this province from $17.4 billion to $18.2 billion this year. It's important to remember that we have done so at a time when the federal government has decreased our transfer payments by approximately $2 billion.

Our Premier and our government have certainly demonstrated that we are prepared not only to indicate our support for providing the best health services and system for people in this province, but we are prepared as well to provide the financial resources, as we have done today when we have indicated that we have prepared to expand the financial assistance package to those who were infected prior to 1986.

As has been pointed out, the package that was presented during the window period is one that is worth $2.7 billion. Of the total, the provinces are paying $1.6 billion to ensure that high-quality health services are available to all of the individuals. The provinces are also paying for $300 million in direct financial assistance, and Ontario is paying $113 million of that. The federal government is paying the remaining $800 million.

It's also extremely important to remember that the provinces, with the federal government, have made a commitment to ensure that there is a future blood system that will provide for a safe and secure supply of blood. It is the provinces that will be subsidizing the majority of the costs that are going to be involved in operating the blood system.

It is our desire today to indicate that we have heard the voices of people not only in the province of Ontario, but we have listened to those throughout Canada, and we are prepared to call on Ottawa to join us, to join the chorus of Canadians who are calling for justice for all people who were infected with hepatitis C before 1986. I am pleased today to support the resolution put forward by our Premier, and I look forward to hearing a positive response from the federal government and our colleagues throughout this Dominion of Canada.

1650

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This has indeed been a difficult issue for various levels of governments - those being the provincial governments, the territorial governments and the national government - to deal with because of certain legal problems that have apparently made some reluctant to make the package that has been proposed now as expansive as it might have been. Certainly it is encouraging when we in the opposition raise issues of this kind that the government will eventually respond to that being raised in this House and in other venues.

The government of Ontario has in fact been resisting for some period of time an expansion of this package. Certainly we heard from Clay Serby, who I think is called the chair of the provincial ministers of health - he's the Saskatchewan Minister of Health - and he has indicated on many occasions that all of the provinces, along with the federal government, agreed to a compensation package. It is interesting that it was in fact the federal Minister of Health who was asked to answer questions on this. Of course, the federal House was in session and the provincial House was not in session at that particular point in time, but the federal minister has taken the flak from the news media, from the opposition in the federal House and from others, when it has, all along, been in agreement between all of the provinces and all of the provincial ministers and the federal minister.

I think what the public does not want to see in this regard is the kind of wrangling that has emerged as a result of this package beginning to come apart. In fact, what they're looking for is a situation where governments are working together to find a solution, not one claiming credit or another claiming credit or necessarily one government pointing fingers at others, because if we look back in the history of this, some of the significant opposition to an expansion of this package in any way indeed to the package which was arrived at has come from various provincial governments, including this provincial government.

I have a letter here dated April 28, 1998, from Health Minister Witmer, which was written to one of my colleagues, Alexander Cullen, Ottawa West. It says the following:

"Dear Mr Cullen:

"Thank you for your letter on behalf of people in your community about financial assistance for people infected with hepatitis C through the blood system.

"As I am sure you are aware, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health have agreed to offer financial assistance to Canadians infected with the hepatitis C virus through Canada's blood system between January 1, 1986, and July 31, 1990. Our governments have set aside up to $1.1 billion for this assistance package, of which Ontario will provide up to $113.1 million.

"Coming up with a fair assistance package was difficult and complex. We recognize that many people put their trust in the blood system and Ontario's participation in this national assistance plan is a major step towards helping them.

"I am deeply sympathetic to those who may have been infected with hepatitis C before 1986 and I can understand their disappointment in not being included in this offer of assistance. However, even governments are limited in the help they can provide and we cannot correct or remedy every harm suffered by individuals.

"I believe that we have taken a fair and just approach in reaching agreement on this package of financial assistance.

"Once again, thank you very much for writing me about this important issue."

It's clear from this response and from the response in the House last week that the position of the government was that it did not want to expand that package. What happened was, in the Quebec House the Liberal Party moved a motion asking that this issue be reopened. Mr Johnson moved a motion - as the new leader, of course, I'm sure Mr Charest, the former Conservative leader federally, would be supportive of that - in the Quebec National Assembly, asking that it be reopened, that the federal and provincial governments go back to the table to reopen this particular set of negotiations.

Lucien Bouchard, if nothing else, is no fool, and he sees every chance as an opportunity to stick it to the federal government, so he had a good plan. He said, "Let's do that, but I'll amend the motion and we'll simply say the federal government should do it." That seemed to be very attractive to some in the provincial government, because I heard the Premier and some others, including the Minister of Health, say: "Gee, that sounds like a good idea. We'll point the finger to Ottawa. They can assume all the costs of this additional package, and we will look good because we are saying that should be done, that the package should be expanded."

So one becomes a bit cynical when we see the history of this; when we see that Mr Jim Wilson, when he was minister, resisted a discussion with those in the Haemophilia Society about compensation; when this government seemed to be dragging its feet on this package when there was an attempt to come up with a package even for those within the confines of the limitations I've already mentioned.

I guess what I find most difficult is for those who are not known for compassion and for the willingness to spend money to be the prime advocates of it, and that is the Reform Party of Canada, to which some people in this House may belong. To see the Reform Party up in the House demanding a compensation package and government expenditure was truly laughable when we know where the Reform Party stands on expenditures.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I don't point the finger at you; I simply say this is inconsistent with the image. When governments or parties portray themselves as parsimonious, portray themselves as hardheaded on fiscal matters, and then suddenly make a change in their policy and a change in their approach, you will forgive me, I'm sure, for being just a bit cynical about the motives that are emanating from that.

I want to say to those who will play footsie with the PQ and Lucien Bouchard on issues of this kind that you must be very careful. You go down a dangerous path. There are some who believe that other provinces in this country secretly cheer on Lucien Bouchard as he demands more provincial powers, as he demands to secure more powers for his province, because they feel they can tag on to those demands, or at least, if those demands are accepted, they will accrue to those provinces as well. I say to everyone who looks at Lucien Bouchard and his desire to seek compensation, you should see that there might just be a political motivation in it.

As I mentioned previously, I don't think people in this province or anywhere else have looked forward to the one-upmanship and the trickery and the show that has gone on in other jurisdictions, I think particularly in the House of Commons, over this. What we are talking about are people in a very unfortunate circumstance, unfortunate due to nothing they have done themselves - extremely unfortunate. They have contracted hepatitis C, which eventually in most cases will have a very devastating effect on their personal health.

For those of us in this House who gather together, as the member for London Centre, the NDP critic, and the member for York South, the Liberal critic, have had to say, even looking carefully at the detail, because the devil is often in the detail, this resolution, agreed upon by the three parties, called for by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party earlier this week in this House, will at the very least allow this to be placed back on the table. Hopefully negotiations will be recommenced by the federal ministers. I know calls will go to Clay Serby, the Saskatchewan minister, to ask him, in his capacity as the chair of the health ministers of Canada, if he and the federal minister, Mr Rock, can convene a meeting of all the ministers to come to an agreement.

One must remember that the provincial governments cannot be allowed to get away with counting as their part of the compensation package - I think as put most appropriately by the member for London Centre - that which they would normally cover in any event as a result of the health care system we have in place.

I think this Legislature this afternoon, by voting for this resolution, although it may be flawed in certain ways, I believe will express a multiparty viewpoint that we wish to see hepatitis C victims compensated.

I want to thank the Premier for responding to the opposition and responding to others in our society who have called upon him to not wrangle with the Prime Minister of Canada but rather join with the federal government and other governments in providing the kind of compensation which is appropriate for individuals who have been afflicted with hepatitis C.

1700

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this important debate. As I said earlier today, I feel very strongly that the government is proposing to do the right thing. That is most important in the lives of those victims who were infected with hepatitis C from the blood system prior to 1986 and would have otherwise been left completely out of the compensation package that had been negotiated and agreed to by the federal government and the provincial governments.

I also said earlier, and I feel a need to repeat, particularly after hearing the government's contribution to the debate so far, that the level of cynicism with which people must view these actions I can only imagine is as high as mine is, and mine is very high.

I watched the successive ministers of health for months refuse to participate in any package and do all the finger-pointing at the federal government: "There should be a package, and it should be the federal government that does it." Jim Wilson was very clear: "No" was the answer. Liz Witmer was very clear: "No" was the answer at first. Even on the eve of the federal-provincial negotiations, "No" was the answer.

Then an agreement came out and we started to ask questions. My leader last week, I think it was on Tuesday or Wednesday, asked her: "You made a commitment. You promised all hepatitis C victims that they would be compensated. Why have you gone back on your word and why do you not push for opening up this agreement and including the pre-1986 victims?" Her answer was really clear. She didn't think there was a responsibility or a liability: "I feel sorry for the folks, but it ain't our job, man. There isn't a legal liability there, so we're not going to do it."

The next day on CFRB - there's a bit of public pressure mounting on this issue - she says: "We think the deal should be reopened, but it's the federal government that should pay for it. Don't look to us; not the province. Let's point fingers. Let's fight all the grievances, legitimate as they may be, against the federal government cut in transfers to health care. I agree there are legitimate grievances on that, but let's fight it out in this arena." How cynical can you be, exploiting these people and their lives with respect to that? I was shocked to hear that. Then the next day she gets on the phone with the ministers of health from the other provinces and comes out and yet again agrees to the package as it was constituted, to exclude the pre-1986 victims.

The next day the Premier gets into a dust-up with the Prime Minister at the Chrysler announcement and there's all this finger-pointing going on. You can always tell when you're moving into a pre-election period because the government of the day always points a finger at the feds. There we were again. In the most cynical of ways, that's what the Premier was doing.

Today, I think because there was a lot of negative public reaction, we see the Premier make an announcement - I will say again, they are proposing to do the right thing, but we have a lot of questions. The Premier never acknowledged any of that history in his comments. He essentially said they were going to do the right thing for these people and they'd go to the feds and get the money afterwards. The minister spent all her time talking about all the wonderful things they're doing and money they're spending in health.

Neither of them answered the key questions that our leader, Howard Hampton, and our health critic, Marion Boyd, have put with respect to this package. For instance, if a person, because of their illness, has been out of employment and has ended up on social assistance, must they use up all this compensation package before continuing to be eligible for social assistance or for the drug benefit card that is part of that? If they are currently, before receiving the compensation, in a financial circumstance such that they would be eligible for the Trillium drug plan, will they remain eligible, or will they become ineligible because of this compensation package?

I have to say that these are very important questions. When this issue first broke, the story of this broke, a number of years ago, and I was health minister, we had to make some decisions with respect to the compensation for AIDS victims, about passing through this compensation. We decided very clearly that people should not be responsible, to have to use up the compensation before being entitled to other benefits they would otherwise be entitled to.

We deserve, the public deserves, most importantly the hepatitis C victims who became infected prior to 1986 deserve, a clear answer from this government. Let's stop wavering. Let's find out if there will be a statutory plan, a no-fault plan, a plan which gives people appropriate compensation based on compassion, not on narrow lines of legal liability. Let's see if this government lives up the recommendations of Justice Krever. We hope they will. We will continue to push to ensure this government does that.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am very pleased to stand in the House today to speak in favour of this resolution; in fact, my first opportunity in this particular session of the House, since we began this past week, to speak to a resolution or a bill, and I think a moment one will remember in terms of entering important debates, resolutions, that I will take back as particular memories of my time here in the House.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That indicates you don't think you are going to be here after the next election.

Mr Hudak: Or maybe the beginning of many memories here in the House and one to build upon.

This compensation package will extend that for those who were infected by hepatitis C from 1986 through 1990 to those who were infected before 1986. It is a moment I will commit to memory as a proud Canadian and a proud Ontarian, because I certainly see here my province strong again, my province confident again, and my province once again ready to take a leadership position among the other provinces across this country; in fact, a leadership position ahead of the federal government, pulling them towards a solution of fundamental justice, a strong province that I think will set the tone for other provinces across this great country.

I expect a resounding vote in this Legislature momentarily when we get to that vote soon in the day, a strong voice coming from Ontario, a voice and a vote that will echo across the provinces, because I certainly expect this resolution to be the first among many other resolutions or commitments from the other provinces to try to move the federal government along. I think that voice will be heard from coast to coast, and I think finally we can move the federal government to action on this. I am pleased that I can anticipate, I think, all-party support in this House on this resolution. I would expect most of the members here, as well, if not all, who I see, to support this motion.

I hope as well that the resolutions I expect from other provinces will, like ours, extend the same basis of the compensation package to those who are pre-1986 as those who exist for 1986 through 1990.

I know that many government lawyers, whether in Ontario or with the federal government, in Quebec, British Columbia or Newfoundland, may argue against it, and maybe they do have some strong legal arguments or reservations why they wouldn't extend the compensation package to the hepatitis C victims before 1986, but it's our job as legislators to put that advice from the lawyers into balance with other issues like compassion, other issues like the concept of what is fundamentally just in a country like Canada. We see here today in this resolution that compassion wins out in Ontario, that fundamental justice will be the victor in these chambers in this resolution today.

Ontario will not stand idly by - a strong province, a province prepared to take leadership among the others - while the federal government refuses to act. These people need help and they need help desperately. We need to respond to this fundamental justice call, and Ontario is prepared to do our part to help them out. We will be providing assistance for those persons infected before 1986 on the exact, same basis as those infected between 1986 and 1990.

As I've said, I expect other provinces to follow suit, to help us, with Ontario in the lead, and I expect soon the other provinces to join and to push an intransigent federal government to respond. Surely the local MPs are receiving phone calls in their offices, surely they are receiving and reading the letters to the editor, surely they are feeling the strong sentiment among the general public that what they have done is not good enough, has not gone far enough. They continue to ignore those before 1986 and they are wrong. Surely they must hear this. When they hear Ontario and Ontario's MPPs speaking loud and speaking strongly and saying, "We will take that leadership if Jean Chrétien and his federal Liberals refuse to do so," I think we will force them to act. As the Premier said, if they do not act, Ontario will act. But I certainly expect, with Ontario, and if other provinces join in, that the federal government will have to budge, that the Rock will have to crumble, that they will move on.

I expect the first thing their counterparts across the floor, the Liberal Party in Ontario, will do when they finish the debate today is to call their colleagues in Ottawa, the - what is it now? - 102 or 103 members, to let them know. The strength of the Liberal vote in Ottawa comes from the province of Ontario, and here they will hear Ontario speaking very loudly, very strongly, with a voice of compassion, a voice of fundamental justice, to say, "Help those victims," and surely with that vote and with the help of the members opposite to call their colleagues, who I know are very close on all the issues, to budge them as well, to get them to change their vote.

1710

It must have been very difficult - you read of one Liberal MP breaking into tears as she had to vote in favour of the motion as Chrétien cracked the whip and forced them to fall into line - to reject the pleas of those infected before 1986. I understand the NDP federally, as I read in the papers today, is considering bringing another motion to the floor to test again whether the Liberal members there will represent the views of their constituents and respond to this issue, represent the views of Ontario and the other provinces, or will they follow through and respond again to the crack of the whip from their health minister or their federal leader?

But I think when you hear the strong province of Ontario, again leading the nation in job creation, speaking out so resoundingly in favour of bringing the compensation package in line, the federal government should have no choice but to respond. I can expect the member for St Catharines to get on the phone and speak with Walt Lastewka tonight, I would hope, to tell him he should change his vote, as should the other ones in the Niagara Peninsula and throughout Ontario.

One remembers too, I think, at moments in this debate some of the faces. I heard other members speak about this earlier today. They spoke about the faces of those who have come in contact with them, come to their office to talk about how hepatitis C or HIV has affected them and affected their lives.

I was recently speaking in my constituency office with a man in the Niagara Peninsula whose daughter, now a young woman, as an infant was infected with hepatitis C through no fault of her own. She is otherwise a healthy normal student enjoying life to the fullest, enjoying the everyday adventures and trials and tribulations of any average young woman at this time of year; in fact, I would think as a student in late May checking the clock and checking the time to see when summer will arrive for a whole new range of adventures and challenges and tribulations. But at the same time, she is a young woman slightly different from her classmates, because as well as looking forward to the summer or to her other exciting adventures that may be coming up, she is looking forward, I suppose, or not looking forward, to another doctor's check to see how she's doing, to test her health, to check for many effects of hepatitis C.

I understand, to date, she has been very healthy, continues to be very healthy, and of course we wish for her continued good health. She is an individual maybe not considered, not weighed in those lawyers' arguments, but an individual who must be considered as we sit in this House and debate this issue today, to put that into balance, an issue of compassion and fundamental justice with lawyers' arguments as well, to bring forward this resolution that speaks strongly on behalf the citizens of Ontario to move the federal government to action as well.

We've been challenged to put our money where our mouth is, I believe were the Prime Minister's words. Indeed, you can see that we have acted, calling on the federal government to act, and acting not only in this case, the hepatitis C package, but acting in many other ways. Of course, it's challenging with federal transfers being slashed these past few years by $2 billion to health care and education, the challenge to meet the needs and the demands of the citizens of Ontario for the best health care system in the world.

Not only this resolution today, but in addition to this compensation, they announced recently $2.1 billion, I believe it was, for long-term care. Not since 1988 had there been any additional beds brought forward for long-term care, and you're going to see 20,000 new beds across the province. Again, issues of compassion and justice, and new investments in home care for services like Meals on Wheels and friendly visiting and respite care show how this government is responding to the needs of its citizens, in the health care field especially. Cardiac care as well: more operations and declining waiting lists, down about 29% in terms of the time to get that vital surgery. Again, a government prepared to put its money where its mouth is.

We made a commitment to ensure that health care spending would stay the same and we would meet the demands, and we are meeting the demands of Ontario's citizens. In fact, we've increased that health care spending from $17.4 billion to over $18.2 billion this year. We are making a similar commitment to those who are suffering from hepatitis C infected before 1986, that they will receive the same scope of justice as those who were infected between 1986 and 1990.

There's some irony too in my colleague the member for St Catharines's comments, saying there was some lack of sincerity, I suppose, in the position across the floor here or with the Reform Party of Canada, but I think a mistake as to what Conservative values mean, Conservative values calling for accountability in the way the taxpayers' money is spent, making sure good use of tax dollars comes out through taxation, issues that would be supported by the taxpayers of Ontario.

Tax dollars and spending should respond to issues of fundamental justice. That's what Conservatives understand. That's the compassion of a Conservative. We can make the tough decisions early, make the tough decisions to get rid of waste and duplication after years, in fact a decade of lost years, of overspending by the Liberal and NDP governments, so that we would have the funds -

Mr Wildman: Oh, come on. What's this got to do with hepatitis C?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. The members for Algoma, St Catharines and Dovercourt, come to order.

Mr Hudak: - to address the needs of priority areas. If we didn't make those decisions, one wonders if we would have the ability to respond so quickly and to lead other countries.

As a strong and growing Ontario, an Ontario showing leadership once again, because we've made the difficult calls, because we have the ability, the compassion and the feeling of fundamental justice to address these issues, I stand in strong support of this resolution. I'm confident the members in this chamber feel the same way. We call on the other provinces to help us, to come into the leadership position with Ontario and pull the federal government to action to extend the same compensation package, the same natural justice, to those infected before 1986 as to those who were after.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I rise to support the motion, the resolution standing in the name of the member for Nipissing. I will try to focus my remarks in this connection on the resolution standing in the name of the member for Nipissing.

I have listened, over the last number of weeks, to the developing controversy around this issue. The agreements and the disagreements between the federal government and the several provinces have been well known. I think it was Mr Clark, the New Democratic Premier of British Columbia, who opined some several days ago now that he didn't find the original agreement very satisfactory, but he quickly retreated. Then I heard other grumblings. The debate in the House of Commons last week was obviously very painful and led to a variety of other consequences.

I must say, driving home last Thursday night I almost veered off Highway 28 north of Peterborough when I heard the news out of Quebec City that the two parties in the Quebec National Assembly had agreed to a resolution that said the basis for compensation in the original agreement should be expanded and that the federal government should pay for the entire expansion. I thought to myself, "What's wrong with this picture?" What seemed to me to be wrong with the picture I was seeing was that on a life-and-death issue for thousands of Canadians it appeared that the politicians were playing the worst of political games. Whether it was Liberals in Quebec or New Democrats in British Columbia or Tories wherever, it just smacked of the worst kind of political gamesmanship imaginable.

1720

I tried to put myself in the position of that individual who came to my constituency office in Pembroke a couple of weeks ago to talk about what life was like as an Ontario resident who had contracted the hep-C virus. I think I would have been angry and furious about what I was hearing on the radio and on television and reading in the newspapers. It was absolutely sickening, because it appeared that it was just all about who could gain some political advantage. I see today that Canadian Press reports the headline, "Nova Scotia Tories Threaten to Topple MacLellan Government Over Hep C," and on it goes. As a political class, I think we'd better all get the message.

I'm happy today to support the motion, because I think the motion reflects a broad base of public opinion in this province. I will be the first to say it's not unanimous. I was home for a very busy weekend, and I wasn't getting very many calls at my constituency office in Pembroke, to be perfectly frank. But I'll tell you, at the Orange Hall in Foresters Falls last night, or at the Presbyterian breakfast at Point Alexander yesterday morning or at the home show in Renfrew on Saturday afternoon, most people wanted to talk to me about hep-C and what was going on, or what wasn't going on. While it was not a unanimous view, most people felt that the deal that had been struck was unfair and arbitrary.

Some people, to be perfectly honest, were of a mind to support the narrowest possible construction and wanted no movement off the original deal. Many people were on the other side of the equation. It was a very interesting array of public opinion. Middle-aged businessmen were, in my experience, the most determined to see the basis for compensation expanded. Some people who I might normally associate with different positions, more interventionist and expansionist positions, were on the other side of the argument, saying, "No, the Rock-Witmer deal is good enough." It was very interesting. But everyone held their view very tenaciously.

I don't know how many of you heard Cross Country Checkup yesterday afternoon, two hours on the national broadcasting service of the CBC. It was a very powerful program. Again, a range of opinion but a surprising number of people who felt that there was something fundamentally unfair and arbitrary with what had been arranged. That's essentially where I come down.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You're going to fall off that rope.

Mr Conway: Listen, I say with all candour - I want to be very frank, and I don't say this lightly, to my friend from Nipigon -

Mr Pouliot: Stop dancing.

Mr Conway: I say this because the hep-C people who came to see me said that, and these are the people we've got to care about. They said to me that there will be people in the 1986-90 category who probably won't need any compensation, and there will be scores of people outside of that four-year period who will need substantial assistance and compensation. I think they're probably right. They pointed to the Irish example as the one we should probably follow. They're the people who are exposed, and as the member for London Centre eloquently said a while ago, it is their lives that will be changed forever, not mine.

I'll say this. If I walked into the hospital in the period of the 1980s and I got blood products, I would assume that those blood products were safe. I'll say to my federal friend Mr Allan Rock, some of the analogies he's used in the last few weeks and some of the analogies that other health ministers have used have been exceedingly unhelpful, very unhelpful and very inappropriate. If we walk into the Peterborough General or the Pembroke General or the Sunnybrook in Toronto, we expect, a priori, that the blood products are safe, and if I'm poisoned with the blood products in a hospital in this province or country, I have a right to expect redress.

That's what's happened here. This is not someone who went out and decided to buy a breast implant - not to buy it; I apologize for that phraseology - but who decided to have a breast implant or some prosthetic device or some other service. These are people who went to the health care system and were poisoned. That's the central issue.

Now the consequences of the poisoning are apparently variable. Not everyone has the same consequence. The group that came to see me in Renfrew county a couple of weeks ago said: "That's what you've got to consider. We don't expect you to open wide the doors of the treasury. We want fair and adequate compensation based on need, and the 1986-to-1990 window is altogether too arbitrary." I have not studied this question to know in great detail what the minutiae of the resolution might be. Judge Krever has. He's recommended a broader base of compensation than we originally agreed to.

You know when I hear people saying, "Oh, well, you know, these people." These people what? When I turn on the tap at home in my community or my Toronto apartment, I assume that I'm not going to be poisoned by the water that I drink. More fundamentally, I certainly assume I'm not going to be poisoned by blood that I get in a Canadian hospital - and thousands of our fellow Canadians have been poisoned. That, for me, is the central question that we must address.

I don't know about the Irish model, but I understand that what was done in Ireland was the establishment of some kind of a medical board that is going to review on a case-by-case basis, looking at need of specific individuals. I stand here today telling you that the people who came to see me in Renfrew North, the Ontarians suffering from this virus, said that would be for them an appropriate model to try to emulate. I stand here today proudly to put their case before this assembly. I don't see it as an inappropriate suggestion at all.

I want to say in conclusion that whatever happens, I think we must respect the sense that is broadcast in the Canadian public opinion that there is something unfair and arbitrary about what was initially intended. One of the fundamental values in our political culture is fairness. I believe that today's resolution is a significant step forward to respond to that sense in the Ontario and Canadian public that we can be more fair than we were initially.

My friend Bradley pointed out just a few moments ago, it's just six days ago that the Ontario Minister of Health was writing members of this House saying, "The original deal is my deal, and I'm not moving off that." She sent certain letters to make that point. I'm pleased she and her colleagues have moved off the original position. I think it will be seen by the Canadian public and certainly by the Ontario public as the right and responsible thing to do.

I say again in conclusion, as a citizen as much as a legislator, there are some times that the public of the community has every right to expect that elected officials, whether local, provincial or national are going to behave in a fashion that responds to real human need and tragedy. We have, all of us, inadvertently or otherwise, discounted the currency of our trade by this embarrassing, disgusting political gamesmanship that's gone on for too long.

Someone once said, "Politics is at one and the same time the noblest of the arts and the most soiled of professions." I'll tell you, there has been too much soiled linen piled up in the face of thousands of Canadians who were poisoned by the blood system, most of them in Canadian hospitals. That's why I'm proud to stand here today, having heard from my constituents who suffer with this terrible virus, and support the resolution standing in the name of the member for Nipissing.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

1730

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is an important resolution. It may be just as important for what it doesn't say as it is important for what it does say. Part of what we're trying to do here this afternoon is to get down to some language and some understanding that is clear. I would offer up the language of Mr Justice Krever as the language that I hope eventually we will all be able to endorse.

Why is Mr Justice Krever's language so important? Because he lays out very specifically in his report what compensation is necessary, what kind of compensation there ought to be for the victims of hepatitis C.

He says in his report, after having studied the tainted blood scenario for many years, after having called many witnesses, after releasing that exhaustive report, "It is recommended that, without delay, the provinces and territories devise statutory no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products."

In making that recommendation, he doesn't put in any artificial dates. He doesn't say "people identified after this date or before that date." He's very clear in saying that it should be "statutory no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products."

What I would hope is that the government of Ontario, the federal government and all the provincial governments would come together and put together a compensation strategy that flows directly from the words of Mr Justice Krever.

If I may refer to this government, the problem we've had is that this government has tried over many months to avoid moving in the direction that Mr Justice Krever has advocated. Prior to the release of the Krever recommendations, this government had been resolute in not accepting any responsibility for compensation. In fact, the then Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, stated several times that the province pays the health care costs of these victims and the responsibility for any compensation should be the federal government's. In other words, the original position of this government of Ontario was, "Not responsible in any way for compensation."

Upon the release of the report, the present Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer, said only that she would study the report: "On any of the recommendations that have been made within the report, we're going to continue to analyse them. We won't be making any statements until such time as we've had an opportunity to meet with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues." That was the next position.

Then we have a Toronto Star article on May 2 which says that it was the provincial governments, specifically Ontario and Manitoba, that would not agree to compensation in any way. Then we have Elizabeth Witmer stating on the eve of the federal-provincial conference that the provinces owed nothing to compensation.

Then we have the release of the compensation package. There is widespread anger across Ontario and indeed across Canada that it is not a compensation package; it is in effect a package which tries to limit the liability, a package which compensates some, leaves out thousands of others and simply tries to limit the legal liability. That's the emphasis of the existing package.

Then in this Legislature, following the release of the package, I and the member for London Centre, our health critic, Marion Boyd, asked the Ontario health minister, "How could you sign on to a so-called compensation package which will exclude 30,000 of the innocent victims of the tainted blood scandal?"

The response from the health minister was: "As the member knows, there were ongoing deliberations and discussions by health ministers throughout the Dominion of Canada, including Mr Rock, the provinces and the territories. There was very careful analysis done of the Krever report, of all the information that was provided, and after that very, very careful deliberation there was a decision made and an assistance package was provided and agreed to by all of those individuals at the meeting."

In other words, this government then bought into that package that was released, the package which has been the subject of so much criticism across the country.

Today, after I think testing the political opinion polls, the Premier and his government are now saying they want to have a better compensation package. This is the resolution, and I want to read it, because it's important to understand what this resolution says and doesn't say:

"That the Legislative Assembly support the Ontario government's call for a compensation package for Ontarians who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986, and that pending a resolution of federal liability for the contaminated blood problem, Ontario agree in the interim that such new package be funded by Ontario and the federal government on the same basis as the federal-provincial agreement covering 1986 to 1990."

In so far as that statement says that the compensation package that exists ought to be expanded, I agree with it and I support it. I believe every New Democrat would agree with it and support it. But in view of the fact that this government has had, I would argue, four positions now in less than five months on the compensation of victims of tainted blood, I think it's our duty here today to try to pin the Harris government down. That's what we're going to try to do.

Earlier today I asked the Premier if he would follow the words of the Krever commission. What I was hoping was that the Premier would simply say, "Yes." This is what the Premier said:

"I don't know why you're talking about legal liability. If all I did was listen to the lawyers, I wouldn't have made the statement and the announcement that I made today. Of course this statement is on compassionate grounds of people who through no fault of their own, as pointed out by Mr Justice Krever, have been infected with hepatitis C. There will be other legal challenges, and the lawyers can fight that out. There will be intergovernmental battles between our government in the provinces and the federal government.

"In the meantime, we have come forward so that victims, I think as was Krever's wish, do not have to wait for that intergovernmental wrangling which undoubtedly will go on and the discussions among the lawyers which will undoubtedly go on."

What I got from the Premier was that the Ontario government would like to compensate on compassionate grounds. But I didn't hear a commitment to "a statutory no-fault scheme for compensating persons who suffer serious adverse consequences." Simply adopting those words would have done; simply stating those words would have done it.

I then asked the Premier of Ontario for a commitment to ensure that people who qualify for an expanded package of compensation, people who qualify for a new package of compensation, people who have been affected by tainted blood, would not lose other benefits that might be available to them in Ontario, such the Trillium drug benefit and certain benefits that might be available to them under social assistance. All I got from the Premier was: "We have put our money on the table in a compassionate way to all victims of hepatitis C. I see nothing in our offer that takes away from any of the other provincial programs."

All I wanted from the Premier was a straight answer that said: "Any benefits that an innocent victim receives under the Trillium drug plan they will not lose, any benefits they receive under a drug plan that is available through social assistance they will not lose, and any other benefits that may be statutorily available in Ontario will not be lost. They will be guaranteed." Unfortunately, I didn't get that.

I was trying to be helpful; we were all trying to be helpful. We want to be very clear that all those people who have suffered as a result of the tainted blood scandal will be properly, compassionately and fairly compensated, and that what they gain out of the compensation package will not be lost elsewhere. That was what we asked the government today and I wish we had received that answer, because it would then make it so much easier to go forward to the federal government and say, "This is the basis upon which Ontario is prepared to enter into discussions," and then put the ball squarely in the federal government's court. Unfortunately, that didn't happen today, and unfortunately, as I read the words in this resolution, it's not there.

I've listened very intently to spokespersons for the Conservative government here today. What I wanted to hear from them was an adoption of Mr Krever's words. I wanted to hear people say very carefully that victims of tainted blood would not lose any benefits they might receive under the Trillium drug plan, would not lose any benefits they might receive under social assistance drug plans and would not lose any other statutory benefits. I haven't heard it.

1740

What I've heard the government do is go on and on about its health budget. I just heard the member Mr Hudak go on and not talk about compensation on the basis of compassion, on the basis of understanding, on the basis of fairness. I listened to a lot of claptrap about the amount of money the Conservative government has put in its health budget for the purpose of closing down hospitals and laying off nurses. It's got no business in this debate, in this discussion.

The health care costs that Ontario will have to bear, that Saskatchewan will have to bear, that Quebec will have to bear, that British Columbia will have to bear, we will have to bear anyway. Until you complete your project of privatizing Ontario's health care system, they will be covered by OHIP, they will be covered by Saskatchewan health insurance, they'll be covered by Quebec health insurance. To try to include the costs of health care somehow in the compensation package hints to me that you're not sincere in this, that you're more interested in developing a platform to talk about what you may or may not be doing in health care funding and that you're not serious about talking about and addressing the real compensation issues of people who suffer from tainted blood through absolutely no fault of their own.

Please stop trying to include the health care costs of people who are suffering from the tainted blood scandal, stop trying to build that into some sort of soapbox. It's got no place in this debate. Yes, the health care costs will be substantial, but what we're concerned about here, what Mr Justice Krever was concerned about, what he says very directly in his report, is that these people are suffering through no fault of their own, that they deserve to be compensated fairly and with compassion.

Let us stick to that issue. What we want from the Ontario government and what I'd advise the Ontario government to do, if you want to move this forward, is come out and very clearly say that people who are compensated in any new framework of compensation will not lose any benefits they receive now under the Trillium drug plan, will not lose any benefits they receive now under a drug plan that may be available through social assistance, will not lose any other statutory benefits they may be eligible for at this point in time. Say that, and please at the same time use the language of Mr Justice Krever so that there can be no confusion, there can be no obfuscation, there can be no playing with words on this issue, so that there cannot be resort to any other artificial dates or other artificial timelines to be used for the purpose of excluding people from compensation.

I would have thought that as a government you would have learned your lesson in terms of what happened with the surviving Dionne quintuplets. I would have thought you would have learned your lesson, I would have hoped that you would have learned your lesson: that there is an expectation here that these people will be dealt with fairly, will be compensated fairly, will be compensated with understanding and compassion -

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Go get a lawyer -

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Hampton: I note that members of the Conservative caucus are already taking offence at my comments about fair compensation rather than narrow, legalistic definitions. This is exactly what we fear, that the government wants to use this issue as a soapbox. I'll repeat the advice. If that's what you're thinking, don't do it. You have already had four positions on this issue and your credibility is thin now. If you try to play with this issue any more, it will grow thinner.

Despite all the catcalls from the Conservative members, despite the fact that they don't like what I'm saying, that they don't like the emphasis upon the words of Mr Justice Krever and his recommendations, we will support this resolution. I hope the government is listening.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): It's with pride that I stand this afternoon and support the Ontario government's call for a compensation package for Ontarians who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986. It's my hope and my expectation that we'll do this with fairness and compassion and that for those who are able to meet the criteria we all worked through together in this House, their needs will be met, because they are the people we're talking about today.

This government is committed to ensuring that all Ontarians, and indeed all Canadians, have a system of health care they can rely on to meet their needs. As a matter of fact, the ministers of health and the premiers across this country have the same objective, and they are of all political stripes.

Ontario has made health care its number one priority. Last December first ministers all expressed their strong desire to protect the future of the health care system for Canadians. They agreed that it is important to achieve broad agreement around future priorities and to work together to ensure that available funding is invested effectively by both orders of government.

I should add that this is a big challenge in Canada as a modern democracy. We have to find ways governments can work together with respect as they represent the citizens who elected us to entrust in our care the future of the health care system and other systems that are part of this great country called Canada.

On December 12 the first ministers met. They decided they would work together, the Prime Minister and all premiers and territorial leaders, to come forward with a framework for Canada's social union. What this really means is they would commence negotiations on a framework agreement for Canada's social union that would apply to federal, provincial and territorial governments, while respecting each other's constitutional jurisdictions and powers. There are objectives for the negotiations here, a set of principles for social policy such as mobility and monitoring social policy outcomes, collaborative approaches to the use of the federal spending power, appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms between governments, clarifying ground rules for intergovernmental cooperation, and identifying processes for clarifying roles and responsibilities within various social policy sectors.

The first ministers recognize these negotiations should proceed in conjunction with ongoing activities in sectoral areas, and they want to have the completed report ready for the first ministers in July 1998. What does this have to do with what we're talking about today? I think it has a lot to do with it. If we could get those negotiations completed, perhaps these kinds of negotiations would not fall off the wall. I will say that all governments here in Ontario, the prior two governments, all of us have worked towards that objective.

The province of Ontario continues to recognize the legitimacy of the assistance package for hepatitis C victims who were infected by the blood supply between 1986 and 1990. What we're talking about today is, yes, we are all coming under pressure, all of us in this House, all governments across Canada, to take care of the group that were left out. That's what this debate is about. There's a lot to do in this debate with the Ontarians and Canadians across the country who have clearly stated that compensating all hepatitis C victims is a national priority. That is why Ontario has acted, and the federal government quite simply should do the same. These are negotiations that we should enter into together for all citizens across this country who are infected, and the federal government must be part of the solution. It's about compassion and doing the right thing.

Ontario is digging deeper to support hepatitis C victims in this province, and the federal government should do the same. It should stop trying to have it both ways. It cannot call itself the defender of medicare while at the same time cutting funding to provinces for health care. This is true when the NDP were the government and it is true when the Liberals were the government. We are carrying on with the policies and the negotiations of the two previous governments and time is up. It's that time in this country when we have to have a solution.

I wish some of the members would take the time to understand the file. Since 1994-95, the federal government has cut transfers to the provinces for health care, and it is the main priority of all the premiers and territorial leaders in the country.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have 15 seconds. I want to say there's another victim here and that's democracy. I'm appalled by that spectacle in Ottawa where all those members voted against their conscience and voted for this bill. That would not have happened in our caucus.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Harris has moved that the Legislative Assembly support the Ontario government's call for a compensation package for Ontarians who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986, and that pending a resolution of federal liability for the contaminated blood problem, Ontario agree in the interim that such new package be funded by Ontario and the federal government on the same basis as the federal-provincial agreement covering 1986 to 1990.

Is it pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Let's call everyone in. It'll be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1755 to 1800.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Boushy, Dave

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Jim

Caplan, David

Carroll, Jack

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Preston, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wildman, Bud

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 96; the nays are zero.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

This House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock today.

The House adjourned at 1801.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

4 mai 1998