Journal des débats 1998-oct-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm speaking on behalf of Reta Duenisch Turner, the late Mr Ronald Latimer and the thousands of senior citizens across the province who are being mistreated, disrespected and underserviced by the Mike Harris government.

Last week, at a meeting appropriately titled Seniors Under Attack, the Alliance of Seniors to Protect Canada's Social Programs brought forth experts to discuss our health care and long-term-care programs in Ontario, but they also presented the tragic human cost that has resulted from this government's blatant neglect of the needs of our senior citizens.

In her presentation, Ms Duenisch Turner talked about her friend Mr Latimer, who was treated so badly by the health and long-term-care system that he refused to go back: incidents of waiting for hours to be attended to in ER; being admitted to the ER and having to undergo the same repeated tests and being shipped home alone so that he wouldn't take up one of their valuable beds; not being able to get drugs to make his treatment more bearable because it wasn't covered by the drug plan; being refused at two emergency wards and not being accepted at a hospital before a Visa card was presented; not having the adequate long-term-care services that would have made Mr Latimer's ordeal more civilized.

This government should be ashamed of its talk about how much it is doing for seniors. It's time to listen to our seniors and health care professionals, time to go out and see what's really happening. I'm sure that Mr Latimer would not have wanted to be used as an example of how poorly he was cared for in our system. He should have been treated like a person, with dignity, not considered to be a body taking up a valuable bed in the ER. Mr Latimer was not a statistic but a human. The government seems to have forgotten this fact.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I attended a very disturbing news conference this morning held by the Metro Parent Network. We've been hearing rumours for some time about the impact of the government's plan to close schools across the province.

Today some of the parents came forward on the steps of Queen's Park to tell us that up to 100 schools across Toronto will be closing because of this government. Communities are bracing themselves once again to fight the really dumb policy brought forward by this government. They're bracing now to keep their community schools open.

I can tell you, in Riverdale already there are three small Catholic schools slated to be closed. Pretty soon, later this week, we will be finding out which schools are on the list across Toronto.

In measuring the schools for students, the government took into account hallways, gyms, lunchrooms. It doesn't make any sense. Classes cannot be held in those parts of the school.

The parents and the students of this city, and indeed all of the province, will be calling on the government not just for a rural solution to this problem; we want a solution across the province, including Toronto, to keep our schools open in our neighbourhoods. They are part of our community. We will fight to make sure that happens.

TORONTO ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize the tremendous contribution of the many volunteers in private sector involvement with the Toronto Association for Community Living.

Last week I had the privilege of attending a reception in the Lieutenant Governor's suite in celebration of their 50th anniversary.

TACL provides a wide range of support services, both residential and non-residential, for approximately 4,000 developmentally handicapped children and adults.

This government recognizes the important role that volunteers play in helping to develop strong and vibrant communities. It knows the volunteer sector contributes significantly to the economic and social well-being of the province.

Organizations such as the TACL are dependent on their volunteers. Cay Sheddan has dedicated numerous hours to the association, especially to the Harold B. Lawson Centre in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Likewise, Mr Glen McConnell, vice-president and general manager of Pattison Outdoor Advertising, has personally committed himself to this worthy cause since 1996 when he co-chaired several fundraising events. He exemplifies the tremendous contribution the private corporate sector makes to the success of organizations such as TACL.

Mr Speaker, I would ask that you join me in recognizing the following volunteers who are living proof that the volunteer spirit is alive and well in Ontario: Agnes Samler -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): After several weeks of deliberations behind closed doors, the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission or, as many appropriately call it, the hospital destruction commission, will issue its pronouncement on the future of hospitals in the Niagara region tomorrow.

During the last provincial election campaign in 1995, Conservative leader Mike Harris said, "Certainly, I can guarantee you, it is not my plan to close hospitals." Since he became Premier, Mr Harris has closed 40 public and private hospitals or forced them to merge.

When Dr David Foot, author of the book Boom, Bust and Echo, was asked by a Brock University student what advice he would give to Mike Harris considering the demographic makeup of Niagara, he stated, "Don't close hospitals."

To my question in the Legislature last Wednesday concerning the underfunding of Niagara hospitals, Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer refused to give any assurances about funding or the future of hospitals in Niagara and chose to hide behind the commission established with unprecedented dictatorial powers by Mike Harris in the infamous Bill 26.

The Niagara region has, on a per capita basis, the oldest population in Ontario and will need both acute and chronic care facilities. Thousands of our residents signed petitions and attended public meetings to save our hospitals. Their view should be respected because their advice was good. If the commission sugar-coats its report, we will not say, "Thank you for amputating us at the knee; you could have amputated us at the foot."

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm urging people across this province to pay some very special attention to what happens in this Legislature this coming Thursday morning, October 29, during private members' business.

I say this because there is going to be a resolution presented to this Legislature, which members are going to be called to vote on, that's going to call for this government to keep its promise to introduce and pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act - not mere lip service, not some insane proposition of voluntary compliance. Think about it. Should we repeal the Highway Traffic Act and rely on mere voluntary compliance? Why not have voluntary compliance with manslaughter laws?

We need an Ontarians with Disabilities Act that is tough, that has teeth and that indeed addresses the issue of access to all facets of Ontario life for persons with disabilities; not just access to buildings but access to the economic activity of this province.

This government repealed employment equity and now this government drags its feet on the issue of real legislation to give those persons with disabilities some of the fundamental rights that the balance of Ontarians have enjoyed for a significant period of time.

New Democrats are going to be supporting this resolution and I'm confident members of the official opposition will. The real test is where Tory backbenchers stand. That's what I want people -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

1340

BONNIE PATTERSON

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in the Legislature to offer my congratulations to Professor Bonnie M. Patterson who was installed as Trent University's sixth president and vice-chancellor on October 2 of this year. Ms Patterson is the first woman president and vice-chancellor of Trent and the second woman to be named as the head of a Canadian university.

President Patterson has a long list of credits which include dean of the faculty of business for Ryerson Polytechnic University; professor of the school of administration and information management, Ryerson; chair of the school of administration and information management; and lecturer at the University of Western Ontario. President Patterson is an experienced and accomplished administrator as well as past president of the Council of Ontario Universities.

At the installation, a great deal of praise was extended to President Patterson on her past accomplishments. Included were remarks that she is held in high esteem in the university community and beyond. She was also noted as someone who has been a forceful and articulate advocate of a liberal arts education.

President Patterson joins an esteemed team of women from Trent that includes Ambassador Mary May Simon, Canada's first Inuit ambassador for circumpolar affairs, who is the university's chancellor.

I congratulate not only Bonnie Patterson but Trent University in choosing a dynamic personality for the presidency of that university.

TUITION FEES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today on behalf of the students of our post-secondary programs to tell members about the Premier's latest mean-spirited comments around the issue of student debt.

As members know, Mike Harris was in St Catharines last week, and when pressed on the issue of student debt, his only response was this outrageous statement: "I was a little bit disappointed with the amount of pessimism that seems to be there with the cost of going to college or university." He continued and said he "thinks that the debt might put off the BMW for one more year, but I don't think that ought to be a barrier to anybody."

This comment is shocking. This from the Premier who promised to make changes to make OSAP work for students. Debt loads continue to grow and grow, with the average student debt on graduation being $25,000, and these aren't car loans, Premier, they're debts to banks.

Is OSAP more accessible on the Premier's watch? Well, no. Now it's harder for students to qualify: They have to live away from home longer, their parents have to contribute more and there is still no loans program for part-time students.

I hope these government members are proud of their Premier's comments on this issue and I know that students in Ontario now understand more clearly why this government won't take any real action on debt. It's because their Premier doesn't believe it's a real problem.

I know I'm proud to stand with my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and his commitment to freeze tuition. I'm sorry the Premier is unwilling to make the same commitment to our young people.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Another group of workers in Ontario, who have been under constant attack from the Harris government, have said today, "Enough is enough."

I'm talking about hospital workers. I'm talking about hospital laundry workers, hospital dietary workers, hospital nursing aides, ambulance drivers, hospital cleaners - people, 50,000 or so of them across this province, 90% of them women, who work to keep our hospitals running and keep them clean and safe and make sure that our patients are getting their food on time and that the supplies and linens are all there and are clean.

These people have said to the Harris government, "You can't have it both ways." You've taken $800 million out of the hospital system. Talks have broken down at the central bargaining table, with 180 hospitals at it, because the OHA wants to take away job security language because that's the only way they can meet the government's fiscal priorities, the cuts the government has imposed on the hospitals.

At the same time, when they say, "OK, we have a dispute, let's go to arbitration," you've changed the arbitration process. You've taken away the fair, independent arbitrators and replaced them with a bunch of appointed judges, retired judges who know nothing about labour relations, who know nothing about the jurisprudence in the hospital sector, who are giving awards which are absolutely incredible, taking away things like supplemental health, calling it a luxury and a perk. No wonder these people have said, "Enough is enough."

We may be facing an illegal strike in this province because of the Harris government and your cuts to hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Reports by committees? I forgot, one more statement. I apologize to the member for Durham East.

BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Thank you, Mr Speaker - probably the most important member's statement of the day, arguably.

My riding of Durham East is made up of many small communities like Blackstock, Hampton, Orono and Kendal, to name but four, to follow the member for Renfrew North's opening lines. However, we had four baseball teams from Kendal that recently competed in the provincial championships. Kendal is a very small community in my riding of Durham East. This is a major achievement, for a very small community to win a provincial E-level championship not just in peewee, but in the midget level as well.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the important contribution of volunteers like the baseball association coaches for the Kendal Royals, led by Ron Davis and assisted by Bob Palmer, Harvey Hamilton and Rob Davis.

They keep reports on this. It's clear that they had very sterling pitchers in Kyle Searle and Bryan Bickell. There was an excellent two-run homer by a player named Jesse Gimblett.

It's clear that the contributions of the community volunteers in small communities in Ontario really can achieve great things. Imagine that, the Ontario champions being a team from a small community like Kendal, Ontario. I think the House should recognize this accomplishment and join me in applauding that team today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 72, An Act to govern intercountry adoptions and to implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption in order to further the best interests of children / Projet de loi 72, Loi visant à régir les adoptions internationales et à mettre en oeuvre la Convention sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d'adoption internationale afin de favoriser l'intérêt véritable des enfants.

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): This legislation does two key things: It implements the Hague Convention, which is an international adoption agreement to protect families and children signed by 66 countries, including Canada; secondly, because 80% of Ontario adoptions come from countries which have not signed this convention, this bill implements a licensing system for those involved in helping families to adopt from overseas.

I'd like to thank ministry staff, members of the NDP caucus for their input, and also the member for Lawrence.

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 to 9:30 pm on October 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the 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. I declare the motion carried.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber a special visitor seated at the table right in front of me: Mrs JoAnn McKerlie-Korol, who is the Clerk Assistant and Journals Clerk at the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. Welcome.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, everybody here knows about the tragic shooting of the doctor in the United States who was performing safe, legal abortions. Doctors here in Ontario are concerned. I'm asking for unanimous consent for a statement from the minister responsible for women's issues.

The Speaker: Agreed? No. Time for oral questions.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. On Thursday the Toronto Board of Education is expected to announce their decisions about what schools are likely to have to close if they're going to live with your funding formula. Toronto parents were here this morning to try and tell you how concerned they are about what's going to happen to their children. They want to know where their children will go. They want to know how far they're going to have to be bused.

The parents who were here today hold you and your government directly responsible for forcing these schools to close. They know that you've cut $57 million out of the maintenance budget of the Toronto Board of Education. They know then that there's not enough money to keep these schools open. They know that you have refused as recently as last week to extend the deadline, forcing school boards to make decisions about what schools will have to close.

Minister, will you put back the dollars that you've cut out of board budgets, the over $150 million that you've taken out of budgets to heat, light and clean those so-called extra spaces, so that boards aren't forced to close these schools?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will say that the Toronto Board of Education will have more revenues this year than last year, and the reckoning of the Ministry of Education is that the total revenues of the Toronto Board of Education will exceed $2 billion, fairly close to $2.2 billion, this fiscal year as opposed to about $2.1 billion in the previous fiscal year.

Given those extra revenues coming in to the Toronto Board of Education, it's a good question that the parents should be asking -and I agree with parental involvement - they should be asking the Toronto Board of Education to organize their affairs accordingly so their students receive the best possible education in the best possible accommodation. I encourage parents at the local level to deal with the board and to assist the board in making the best decisions, given the fact that the province is allowing more money to the Toronto board in 1998-99.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, stop playing games with those kinds of numbers. You know full well that there are 44,000 more students in the Ontario school system this fall and that you are supposedly providing education for those students with no new dollars - 44,000 more students; no new dollars - and that's why you're cutting money out of the maintenance budget, about $150 million across the province cut out of the money to heat, light and clean what you have decided are extra spaces.

It's not just Toronto; you know that. In Avon Maitland they'll be meeting tomorrow night to decide what schools will have to close, because you've taken about $2.5 million out of their maintenance budget. Hamilton-Wentworth school board met last Thursday and they decided that they could not follow your rules. They could not close the kinds of schools that you expected them to close because of your funding cuts. They said that neither your rules nor your funding worked for their students. Now they have to find millions of dollars someplace else to keep their schools open, and according to your formula, they can't deal with students who haven't been at a new school in Ancaster.

The Hamilton-Wentworth board has said that school closures you're forcing are wrong for students and they won't do it. What do you say to Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon David Johnson: I would say to Hamilton-Wentworth exactly what I have said in this House and I say to the other boards, that this is a board decision. If Hamilton-Wentworth doesn't feel that they should close any school, that's fine by me. This is a decision that's totally up to each individual board.

The member noted the Toronto situation. In the case of Toronto, according to the chair of the Toronto board, the average maintenance cost per square foot I think was roughly $6.50 last year, which is way above and beyond the norm across the province. The norm across Ontario is $5.20, and indeed about half of the boards are operating more efficiently than that.

I guess I would say again to the boards that are operating efficiently, "Right on, we should encourage you," and I would say to the boards such as here in Toronto, where they're operating much higher than the average rate, "If other boards can operate more effectively and efficiently, why can't you here in Toronto, and other boards, operate effectively and efficiently?"

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Yesterday I hosted a meeting in St Thomas. Parents from southwestern Ontario came to express their deep concern about your government's agenda for publicly funded education. Don't tell me that your funding formula helps small and rural schools. Nobody in rural Ontario believes you. Bob Shepherd from Romney Central School, was there. His picture is in the Toronto Star today. He is a symbol because Romney is the first school closed. Your government's one-size-fits-all formula closed his school. Your formula does not recognize the unique needs of his community. I have tried to tell you that. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been trying to tell you that. On Saturday, almost 1,000 parents marched in Stratford to protest rural school closings.

When are you going to fix your funding formula to recognize the importance of rural and community schools in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: I will say that the funding formula makes specific provision for specific cases such as remote and rural schools. There's about $90 million in the formula which will be distributed to about a third of the boards across Ontario to assist them because they are located at great distances from some of the major urban areas. There's also about $40 million for small schools, specifically elementary schools with an average class size of less than 20, for example, and that money will assist schools in that direction.

When the member talks about the funding formula, I note that the director of education for the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario has said, "This formula will go a long way to helping us build pupil places." The director of York Region District School Board has indicated, "It is wonderful news to us."

We are simply attempting to be fair and equitable to all the boards across Ontario, to give them the money to work with their communities to provide -

The Speaker: New question.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. On September 28, I asked you why the funding to support students with high levels of need had not yet been provided to school boards, some three weeks into the school year. I expressed to you the concern of parents that their children were at home because the support was not there. You told me the money was in place, but as of Friday, the money was still not there and parents are continuing to call.

Mr Proulx of Toronto called me this morning about his visually impaired son, Samuel. Samuel needs specialized computer support to continue with his grade 6 program. The computer was tentatively placed on order last April but it can't be actually ordered because the money for it hasn't come. Minister, can you tell Mr Proulx why there is still no support in place for his son?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will say that the monies which have been set aside for special education, over $1 billion - roughly $1.1 billion, as a matter of fact - are flowing to the particular boards. The amount of money we announced back in March of this year, some $1.052 billion, is flowing to the school boards as we speak. The Lakehead District School Board, for example, has been the beneficiary of about half a million dollars. These monies are flowing.

In terms of the fine-tuning of the special education grants, the very small amount in addition to the $1.052 billion is being worked with the local school boards, but the vast majority of the money is out and flowing to the school boards as we speak.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we were told on Friday that the money to support the individual needs of high-needs children has not reached the school boards. That's why we're getting calls from parents. You told me a month ago that the money for these children would be there; it is still not there.

I'll give you another example, a parent who called us last week, Mr Harry Pott. His son is one of the young people who need that kind of full-time support if he's even to stay in school. He goes to Thousand Islands Secondary School in Brockville, and at the beginning of September he was told that he could only attend school until 2 o'clock in the afternoon because that's all the support that could be provided until the new funding arrived. There is still no funding for Mr Pott's son to go to school full days. His father wants to know what's happening. Don't talk to Mr Pott about fine-tuning; tell him why the money for his son is not in place.

Hon David Johnson: That's a question that should be addressed by the board, because this government has assured each and every board that not only is the flow of money there today, but some $1.052 billion is flowing in monthly allotments to the various boards. That includes the intensive support amount as well as the basic grant amount. Those monies are flowing to each and every one of the boards. The boards have been guaranteed enough money to ensure that each and every special education student has the same support they've had in the past. We've made that pledge, monies are flowing and those questions should be placed to the board as to why the students are not getting the proper support.

1400

Mrs McLeod: The boards say that the money has been promised, that they've been told it's coming but it's not there. Your government has a remarkable record of saying something is going to happen and then not doing anything for months or years. We've seen emergency room funding, we've seen chronic care beds not up, we've seen cancer care funding not flowing. In your own ministry we had scholarships that were announced and never did get put in place; they just simply disappeared. This time there are children, young people out there with very special needs and you can't simply ignore them. You can't make their needs fit your formula before you provide the support.

Minister, I suspect your promise is costing you a lot more than you expected. I suspect that's probably why you are meeting this week to start to re-evaluate your promise before the money has actually flowed. But all that parents know is that their children are at risk. You said the money was there. As of last Friday, almost two months into the school year, it simply was not. The parents want to know why the money's not there. Minister, tell them what's going on.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry to disappoint the member opposite, but this government for the first time ever in the history of any government has defined and protected the special education monies going to the various school boards, and this government has insisted that over $1 billion in special education be spent on special education. Those monies we promised back in March are flowing to the school boards as we speak. That includes the basic amount for school boards and that includes the intensive support amount.

What is happening now is the last fine-tuning amounts, the very small per cent. We're working with the boards on that very fine-tuning. But those monies are flowing to the boards as we speak and the boards should be giving the students the kind of services they received in the past. If they aren't, then they're not doing their job.

ABORTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, I want to ask this of the acting Premier. Over the weekend we witnessed the tragic shooting and death of a doctor who had been providing safe, legal abortions to his patients. This is the fifth sniper shooting of a doctor since 1994. Two years ago a physician in Ancaster was shot by a sniper.

We've heard from the President of the United States. He has condemned this. The US Attorney General has condemned it. The OPP has condemned it. The RCMP has condemned it. The FBI has condemned it. Yet your Premier and your government are completely silent. Minister, the Premier is out there attacking health care workers, attacking teachers, attacking union members, attacking poor women who are pregnant. Why has the Premier and your government been completely silent on this tragic issue?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I refer this matter to the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): First of all, let me stress that our government certainly does not approve and does condemn what happened. We believe that these situations are very tragic and we take them very seriously. The safety of all our professionals in the medical field is of tremendous concern to each and every one of us, and I can assure you that if the Ministry of Health is asked to assist in any way in this investigation, we would certainly be prepared to do so.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this was a sniper shooting, a murder of a physician. As I told you, a physician here in Ontario was shot two years ago. Your government is completely silent on this issue; in fact, worse than that. We asked for unanimous consent today, and I believe your minister responsible for women's issues was one of the members who said no - no to standing up and saying on the public record: "This is wrong. This cannot be accepted."

In 1992, when the Morgentaler Clinic was bombed, the Minister of Health at that time, Frances Lankin, who sits here beside me, was on her feet the next day to condemn the bombing and to say that the clinic would be rebuilt and those medical services would be provided. We hear nothing from you or your Premier, absolutely nothing, and nothing from the minister responsible for women's issues. This is the time for leadership. This is the time to condemn this cowardly act. Minister, will you do that now, and will your Premier do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I indicated in my first sentence, these types of situations are extremely tragic and we certainly take them very seriously, but it's also important to make the public aware of the difference. In 1992, that was a situation that occurred in our own province, the province of Ontario, and it was necessary, obviously, for Ontario to show leadership. The situation we're talking about today is one that occurred outside of our boundaries. But, as I said to you, our government takes this very seriously.

This is an investigation that is presently taking place. The police are conducting this investigation, and as I said in my first response, our government and the Ministry of Health are prepared to help the police in any way we can in this situation, and we will do so.

Mr Hampton: This is a campaign, and I believe even the police are saying this, to intimidate physicians, to intimidate them not to provide a medical procedure which is covered by our laws and covered by our system of health insurance. Your government has been completely silent. Your Premier, who has something to say about almost everything, has been completely silent.

Worse than that, your government has actually been shutting down the provision of abortion services yourselves. You've cut $800 million from hospital budgets. When you amalgamated hospitals, when you forced the amalgamation of Wellesley with St Michael's, up to 1,500 procedures a year were cancelled. Now you've placed a billing cap on physicians who perform abortions, a strong disincentive for any doctor in this province to perform this medical procedure.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, your government is actively participating in a campaign to shut down access to safe, legal abortions. When will you -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me again stress the fact that this is a very tragic situation. It is a situation whereby the OPP in this province is co-operating with the FBI in the United States in order that the individual or the individuals responsible can be located.

Let me also say to you that this government has not taken any action to decrease the services. In fact, when the hospitals went through the period of the amalgamation, the services were transferred and discussions were held with other physicians in order that those procedures could be provided for elsewhere. As you know, if you take a look at hospitals in this province, not every hospital provides every service.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: In some hospitals you can get cardiac services and in other hospitals you can't. In some hospitals there's dialysis and in others there isn't.

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, leader of the third party.

1410

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also to the Minister of Health. I say to the minister, your silence on this issue and your government's silence on this issue speaks volumes, and the effect of your decision is to shut women in this province off from safe, legal abortion procedures.

I want to ask you now about mental health funding. You were on your feet on June 3 of this year to announce $60 million for mental health services. Today, Dr Tyrone Turner, who practises at St Joseph's Hospital, indicated that less that $20 million of that money has been received. It's now five months later. We're seeing the same pattern of empty, phony, cynical health care announcements by you and your government. When are the hospitals and the clinics going to see the further $40 million that you were so proud to announce but have done so little to deliver?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I can certainly indicate to you that we were very proud to be able to conduct an extensive review of mental health services in the province of Ontario. I was very pleased that my parliamentary assistant was able to conduct that investigation and review, because unfortunately the strategy that had been developed by your government was no longer responding to the needs of people in this province who had mental health needs. I'm very pleased to say that we are working with the communities and we want to make sure that we have the providers, that we have the locations in place.

The money has been flowing to those communities and we're now pleased that we see court diversion programs, that we see the teams in communities that can give the 24-hour support.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are providing the community services that are necessary before we take any further steps regarding the psychiatric hospitals. I might say -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you're asking me to believe you over Dr Tyrone Turner. Let me tell you, I believe Dr Tyrone Turner, and the people of Ontario will believe Dr Turner long before they believe you. You now have a track record of a series of empty, phony, cynical announcements about health care, announcements that aren't fulfilled.

The reality is that you keep saying you're waiting to hear from your advisory committee on this issue. That's the gist of your answer today. You cancelled the last meeting of your advisory committee back in August and you've yet to schedule another meeting. Perhaps you really don't need their advice. If your true purpose here is simply to make these cynical announcements and then to delay, delay, delay, you really don't need their advice. But the problem is that the situation out there is becoming more urgent. When are you going to forward this money to the people in this province who desperately need mental health services?

Hon Mrs Witmer: In comparison to the steps that were taken by your government, we have made tremendous strides. As you know, not only did you close psychiatric hospitals and not provide the community support, we actually put the moratorium on the closure of the psychiatric beds until such time that the community services were in place.

I'm pleased to say that we are meeting with our provincial stakeholder group because we believe it's important that the individuals - the providers and the people who access the services - make sure they approve of the provincial strategic plan. In fact, our mental health an-nouncement was lauded by Dr Garfinkel and the London Free Press indicates, "Health Minister Witmer deserves credit for bringing order to the tumultuous changeover in mental health services in Ontario."

Mr Hampton: Minister, you try very hard to miss the point. Yes, you're wonderful at making announcements. We all agree on that. I've never seen a minister who can make so many announcements. The trouble is, the track record shows they're always empty, phony announcements. Five months later, six months later, people are being denied the health services they need. Physicians, hospitals, clinics are having to work harder and harder, trying to hold Band-Aids together. That's the situation you're creating.

Minister, even your parliamentary assistant Mr Newman said that the announcement you made last spring wasn't enough, that you had to come forward with income and housing supports. Here's the track record since last June: You make the announcement, you cancel the meeting with the advisory committee, the money doesn't flow and we see no indication of income and housing supports. Is this another problem at Management Board? Does your colleague sitting beside you not approve of this funding of the health care system? What's the problem over there?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I don't believe that the leader of the third party understands that during the five years the NDP were in office, not only did they not provide any additional funding but they also released people from psychiatric hospitals without community support. We have now, in co-operation with the stakeholders in Ontario, recognized that mental health services, including jobs, housing and community support, are available. We have flowed $20 million; we have flowed $40 million.

Yes, my parliamentary assistant recommended that more money be made available, and I am pleased to tell the leader of the third party that we will soon be in a position where we will be able to completely flow even more money than the millions we've already flowed because, unlike you, we're going to make sure we have a strategy that meets the needs of people, and it will.

CARDIAC CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask you, on behalf of the greater Toronto area cardiologists, why you haven't responded to the information they've provided you. As you know already, this information is not just about surgeries but the tests people with heart problems need in order to get to surgery. You know that GTA cardiologists, the doctors who look after people with heart problems, have released statistics to say that 76 people have died in the GTA, not waiting for surgery but waiting for these tests.

You've known about this since September last year; it has continued. They've just released statistics about the 76 people either dying or having severe heart attacks, and the sad thing about this is that these people are dying at a higher rate than the people on the waiting list for surgery and yet they're further back in line. You've known about this for a time. What I'm here to ask you today is, what are you doing about it?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to say that our government built upon the fine work that was done by the NDP in setting up the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. We have since 1995 reinvested more than $65 million into cardiac services, and I am very pleased to say that we have been able to provide for 16,000 more lifesaving procedures this year, for a total 60,000 this year alone, as a result of our $65-million investment.

Mr Kennedy: The minister knows that community cardiologists have been told that things were going to happen last year. Nothing has happened. They are still finding that people can't get in to see the people running the labs. They aren't getting the tests taken. More people are dying waiting for the tests than are waiting for surgery. You're not taking care of the problem. You haven't changed a thing about the access that people have.

They've asked for some very reasonable things. They want to make sure people have access to cardiologists, they want you to change how people are referred to the system and they want you to put more funds in because you said you would. In September last year, the Cardiac Care Network said you should put more money in, in this case, because angiograms are needed to keep people alive.

Seventy-six people have died or had a heart attack while waiting or waiting far back on the list. Will you at least today acknowledge that there is a problem and that there is something you're going to do about it?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We acknowledge that there is a need to continue to reinvest in priority services such as cardiac care in order that the 16,000 individuals who received life-saving procedures this year can be increased even more.

Let me tell you what we have already done. We have listened to the Cardiac Care Network, and in December 1995 we provided $8 million for 1,435 cardiac surgeries; $2 million in September 1996 for one-time funding for over 750 coronary stent cases; $35 million for 10,000 patients on March 11, 1997. On March 10, 1998, we invested, in response to the request of the Cardiac Care Network, $10.2 million to support cardiac infrastructure needs -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and to expand cardiac management program services. This money has been provided to communities across this province, and let me -

The Speaker: Member for Algoma. Minister, come to order.

1420

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. Will the minister confirm that school boards serving more than 27% of Ontario's school children must cut the operating costs of their schools by more than $1 a square foot because of your new funding formula?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will confirm that the operations and maintenance monies provided to the school boards across Ontario are about 1.5% in total less than in 1997. Some boards will receive more; some boards will receive less. The median provided, at $5.20 per square foot, obviously is more than about half the boards have already been spending and less than about what the other half are spending. We've been attempting to encourage boards to use best practices and to be most effective and efficient, as many boards already are.

Mr Wildman: I guess that's a yes.

The minister knows that there have been divisive school closing discussions going on across the province as a result of the new funding formula for boards, and the minister claims that the decisions are solely the responsibility of the boards.

We have an independent study now that uses the ministry's own submissions in court which prove what we've been saying all along: that the government has taken about $1 billion out of our schools. The minister talks about the median. The new funding formula uses a median expenditure by boards as a benchmark. The medians are the Brant county Catholic board and the Kent county Catholic board, those old boards. The benchmark for operating costs is based on the spending of these two boards, which each had an enrolment representing less than 1% of Ontario's students.

Will the minister come clean and admit that the new funding formula, which is dependent on these median boards -

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

Hon David Johnson: I certainly wouldn't admit that, because it wouldn't be truthful. What I would say is that the amount of funding per student in the classroom will go up over the next three years because, and I'm proud to say this, this government is focusing the spending into the classroom. The people of Ontario feel there is a great deal of money being spent on education in the province. Indeed there has been. Last year there was about $14.5 billion spent on education. This year there will be about $15 billion spent on education, which is more monies being spent on education than ever before, but more of it will be in the classroom and there will be more money spent per student in the classroom than before.

Yes, I'm again proud to say that outside of the classroom in terms of the bureaucracy, in terms of the administration, there will be less money spent, and we are demanding efficiencies outside of the classroom. But in the classroom, where it counts, there will be more money spent and more money spent per student.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Well over a year ago, your ministry embarked on one of the most ambitious and extensive consultations in the history of this province on the Lands for Life program. The three round tables travelled throughout the province, seeking the input of Ontarians from all walks of life on the future shape of crown land use planning. Minister, what is the current status of the Lands for Life program?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member for Peterborough for the question on an issue that I'm sure is important to many people in Ontario. I am very proud of the Lands for Life process for a variety of reasons, first and foremost because this represents a completely new focus on local input into the very important land use planning here in Ontario. It's heartwarming that more than 15,000 people have participated with the round tables in these deliberations over the past few months.

The members of the round tables have worked very hard to consolidate some very passionate information they have received from the public over those months, consolidating that into a plan that will be good for the future of Ontario. I want to thank the members of the round tables for their hard work, particularly Bettyanne Thib-Jelly, who was the chair of Boreal East, Bob Michels, who was the chair of Boreal West, and Bob Gray, who was the chair of the Great Lakes-St Lawrence round table, for all of their hard work on behalf of future generations of Ontarians.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I just want to make sure I can hear you. Member for Peterborough.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Speaker. I'm glad they wanted to hear me, because when we get heckling like that, I automatically know we're on the right track.

Minister, you have identified what I believe is one of the hallmarks of the Lands for Life process, which is a shift from ministry-driven to citizen-driven land use planning. What opportunities will exist for future public involvement in the Lands for Life process?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you know, I haven't had much experience in standing in this House and speaking over heckling, so this will be a new experience for me.

I can tell the member for Peterborough that over the last couple of months, the round table chair has been working very hard to consolidate the three reports into one report, and I hope to receive that report very soon. As soon as I receive that report, we'll make it publicly available so that we can have more comment and more advice from the public on the work of the round tables, and that input and those comments will help us form the framework of the government's response to the land use planning process that has involved so much public input.

Our goals in this are shared by people across the province: completing the parks and protected areas in Ontario, certainty for those whose livelihood depends on natural resources, and improving the opportunities for tourism and for hunting and fishing in Ontario. Those are laudable goals and goals that I believe are shared by many people right across the province.

1430

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): In the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Last week, and very ironically during Small Business Week in this province, we saw the last chapter of the sorry property tax saga in this province take one further step when the Minister of Finance introduced his eighth bill. It's interesting that it didn't deal at all with any of the residential property taxpayers who also in many situations are expected to pay huge tax increases this year.

You are now forcing municipalities out there to, in effect, send another tax bill. Why are you attacking municipalities and why are you attacking the municipal taxpayers to this extent? It has now been eight or nine months that most municipalities haven't even been able to set their budget, haven't been able to send out the proper tax bills. When they finally did, you got it wrong once again. Why are you creating this chaos in the province, and why are you attacking small business in this province on a continual basis?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I am just amazed at the comment from the member opposite when he says, "Why is this government attacking small business?" This government proposes to bring in legislation that will protect small businesses from unfair tax increases.

I also think it's very appropriate that this legislation is being proposed as we start Small Business Week.

We intend to cap tax increases for any business in the commercial-industrial field at 10% in 1998, 5% in 1999 and another 5% in 2000. We think that's fair. We know it took at least 50 years to get into the mess that we're in with the assessment system in Ontario. We also know that you're not going to correct all of the errors of the past overnight. You're going to have to phase in increases and decreases. We want to make sure that those increases are phased in in a fair and equitable manner. But the municipalities were not prepared to do that; this government is.

Mr Gerretsen: Every small business owner in this province knows that your government is totally incompetent when it comes to any kind of tax reform. You know as well as I do that whereas some property owners and small business owners may have their tax increases limited in the upper scale, the municipalities now have to go back to those people who are getting decreases and get more money from them, which is totally unconscionable. As some people have said, it looks as if the provincial tax policy here is set by Vanna White and her Wheel of Fortune.

Why don't you listen to the experts on this? You know as well as I do that an expert panel made up of CAOs in this province, made up of AMO -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, you know that an expert panel on taxation, made up of AMO members, made up of clerks and treasurers of this province, made up of the financial managers and officers of this province, has been waiting out there, has been offering its help to you, and you haven't even acknowledged receipt of their very reasonable solutions as to how the province ought to be dealing with this problem. Why aren't you listening to them? Why are you attacking small business? Why are you attacking municipalities? Why are you attacking the taxpayers of this province? You have continually done it, and you continue to do it.

Hon Mr Leach: I say to the member opposite, let's hear what the municipalities and the business community are saying. Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business applauds the provincial move. Ontario Chamber of Commerce president Douglas Robson also supported the government move, saying that overhauling the system is decades old and it takes time to get it right.

The municipal reaction: Markham Mayor Don Cousens, whom your leader mentioned last week, says he's satisfied with the new deal. Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said she was pleased that the legislation will shift the burden to other businesses.

This whole exercise is to make sure that we bring fairness and equity back into a broken system. It's going to take some time to do that. We recognize that. It's something you didn't recognize when you were in government and something you didn't recognize when you were in government. This government has had the intestinal fortitude to deal with a very, very difficult question. We're working with the municipalities, we're working with small business, and everyone will be satisfied with the outcome.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Education. Your new funding formula is causing potentially the closing of some 130 Catholic and public schools here in Toronto. As you know, the Catholic school board has already identified 29 schools that are now under review. A number of them are in my own west-end area of town, schools like St Rita, St Josaphat, R.W. Scott, schools that are offering good services and are functioning well as community schools. The public school board is going to be releasing the list later this week.

As I look at the difference in the funding formula, for example, for the public school system here in Toronto, it's $360 million less when the plan is fully implemented, when your funding formula is fully implemented. That translates into about 100 fewer schools that the school board is going to have to go through and review and potentially close.

My question to you is simply this: Before this chaos continues in our schools, will you review your funding formula and take out from the calculation the space that you are now not using and make sure that you remove from the danger list some 130 schools here in the city of Toronto?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): As I've said before, this is an annual process that school boards go through. When the NDP was in power there were schools closed each and every year across Ontario; well over 100 schools closed when the NDP was in power. School boards are consulting with their parents about how best to use their resources, how best to meet the accommodation needs of their students.

The member mentioned the Toronto Catholic District School Board. Last year, that board actually received $624 million in total revenues. The revenues this year will be about $70 million more for that particular board, about $695 million to that board. That's a board that, within that amount of revenues, has the leeway to work with the parents to reach the best possible accommodation.

You mentioned the Toronto District School Board. That board has about 80 schools that it no longer uses for public school purposes that at one point were used for public school purposes. Maybe some people think it's about time that it dealt with those schools that it's no longer using. The school board can sell those schools, keep the revenues and use the revenues to build schools where it needs schools. These are the kinds of considerations that boards are going through at the present time.

Mr Silipo: I can tell you that at no other time in memory have the school boards here in Toronto gone through the kind of process that they're going through now, where 130 schools are up for closure. That's not an annual process; that's a completely new process that we can put at your doorstep.

Minister, I'm looking through the application of your funding formula to school after school in my own community. I look at, for example, a school like Earlscourt, which will see its overall funding, including, by the way, the funding that you define as classroom funding, going down; going down this year over last year, and certainly going down, by the time the full formula is implemented, about 12%, 13% or 14% school by school, and it's all because of your funding formula. It's because of the way you calculate the space and the other pieces.

One of the points that was made this morning to us by the Metro Parent Network as they looked at the chaos that you're causing was to say that at the very least you should take some responsibility for what is going on now. The school boards are going through this process, school communities are going through this process. If you won't change the funding formula, will you or your officials or your colleagues be part of those committees, be part of those discussions so that you can explain directly to the parents why their schools are being shut down?

Hon David Johnson: The process was set in place because for many years - well, frankly, forever - there has been a great disparity in funding across the province. I'm sure that all members of this House will realize that many boards, many schools in areas where there wasn't the same wealth, for example, that there might be in an urban centre, were denied the resources, and the disparity between the boards was immense. Some boards had a considerable amount more to spend on their schools and their children than other boards in wealthier districts. This government, for the first time, has attempted to be fair to all students, all schools, all boards, right across Ontario and provide the same level of support.

That level of support in the classroom is above and beyond what it has ever been before, and that's where it counts. Outside of the classroom, on administration, yes, it is reduced. I will confess to that: It has been reduced outside the classroom. But in grand total, there will be about $15 billion spent this year on elementary and secondary education. There will be an increase here in the Toronto Catholic District School Board and an increase in terms of total spending right across Ontario for elementary and secondary schools.

1440

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As you can appreciate, purchasing a car represents one of the largest single investments an individual or family can make next to buying a home. As with most industries in our economy, car manufacturers and car dealers are fiercely competing for a competitive advantage when it comes to offering potential customers the best deals. Car dealers and manufacturers are using very sophisticated marketing techniques to sell cars: incentives such as no money down, 0% financing and guarantees that a certain price would be the best price in town.

In Saturday's edition of the Scarborough Mirror, a community newspaper that my constituents in Scarborough Centre receive free of charge, there are no fewer than nine large, glossy ads for new or used cars promising 0% financing and other marketing techniques.

Minister, what is your ministry doing to ensure that consumers looking to buy a new or used car are protected from misleading or overly aggressive advertisements designed to give one car dealer a competitive advantage over another?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for the question. He's quite correct that buying a vehicle is a very significant purchase for most consumers.

The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council, otherwise known as OMVIC, is responsible for administration of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. They're also responsible for initiating some new marketing standards, which took effect on October 1 of this year.

We and OMVIC had certainly heard many complaints from consumers with respect to the quality and nature of advertising available across the province, particularly fine print advertising and some misleading information as well. OMVIC worked very closely with such groups as the CAA, Advertising Standards Canada, the Used Car Dealers Association and the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association to develop some new standards.

These include that the disclosure must be readable and easily detectable in the advertising, which means none of this really fine print which you can't read any more. They cannot contain statements which are considered ambiguous, misleading or deceptive by giving some sort of unclear or conflicting information to consumers, and they must disclose all taxes and licence charges. Lastly, there must be full disclosure of all information on leasing so that the consumer can fairly compare all leasing programs.

Mr Newman: As I mentioned earlier in my question, my constituents in Scarborough Centre, and in fact all Ontarians, are facing these types of ads every day in publications across our province. Providing guidelines on how dealers advertise is seen as a very positive step forward. However, enforcing these new guidelines is just as important.

I ask you today, Minister, what steps are the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council and the government taking to ensure that these new rules designed to help the consumers not just in Scarborough but across the entire province are indeed enforced?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: OMVIC is serious about cracking down on illegal activities. Within the first year of their mandate they've laid over 200 charges which have resulted in over 100 convictions for unfair practices on the sale of motor vehicles. This is very good news for consumers in Ontario. These rules are enforced a number of ways. There are sanctions that apply. If someone has seriously breached these standards and rules, there could be a revocation of the dealer's licence. Many car dealers have indicated their support for these guidelines. They see this initiative as a very positive step forward for both the industry and the consumer.

I might just end by quoting Mr Bob Pierce, the CEO of the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association, in the Toronto Sun: "`To our knowledge, no other jurisdiction in North America will apply such stringent automobile advertising guidelines,' says Pierce. `Dealers unanimously acknowledged that we had to put an end to the meaningless and often misleading messages appearing daily in Ontario.'"

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Education. For years and years the Manitoulin Board of Education has provided bus transportation to the clients of Hope Farm, which is operated by the Manitoulin Association for Community Living. They provided this service for no charge.

Manitoulin Island is 160 kilometres long and 80 kilometres wide. There is no other public transportation. Manitoulin ratepayers continue to support the school board by paying 70% of what they used to pay towards school expenses. Do you agree with the Sudbury school board's decision to make community living pay $7,000 to transport their clients on the school buses?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I think local boards, in connection with their communities, need to make those decisions. I can only say that from the point of view of the Ministry of Education, roughly $560 million is provided to school boards - it's about the same as last year; I think, actually, it might be just a little bit higher than last year - all across Ontario to provide for the transportation needs of their students, and then the responsibility for the school boards is to take that money and determine how to use it most effectively.

Mr Michael Brown: That's not what I asked the minister. I asked him if he agreed with the Sudbury school board's decision to charge community living $7,000 to transport their clients. The Minister of Community and Social Services will not provide that additional funding to community living. Manitoulin taxpayers continue to pay for their education services. Manitoulin taxpayers want those clients of community living to be able to avail themselves of the only public transportation on Manitoulin Island.

Minister, would you cut Ernie Checkeris a cheque for $7,000 so that community living and those clients can ride the school buses so they can get to Hope Farm?

Hon David Johnson: I would say, number one, that in areas like that, where there is only one method of transportation, then the local authorities are doing their job in attempting to use that to the maximum benefit. I would certainly encourage that. If the board of education can combine with other community uses and serve other people in a broader context, that's great. I certainly am pleased to see that.

I will say, in terms of cutting cheques, the kind of cheques that we have cut, some $560 million, which is up about $3 million from last year in the original announcement - and then we did actually, as the member may know, and I'd forgotten here just briefly, about three weeks ago cut an extra cheque, more monies that we provided to the school boards across Ontario. It will involve about $5 million this particular year. It recognizes the fact that there are fewer PA days. We provided the boards with more monies to accommodate those fewer PA days and transport the students.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who seems to have disappeared. Someone else was in his seat.

The minister will know that for many years the small town of White River, halfway between Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie on Highway 17, has experienced serious water shortages from time to time, both in hot spells in the summer and in the very cold parts of the winter.

The minister has authorized the expenditure of monies for a study of this problem. This is one of a number of studies that have been funded by the provincial government over the years. Could the minister explain what is missing from the previous studies that requires further study before action can be taken to resolve this long-standing lack-of-volume-of-water problem for the residents of White River?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I have this right at my fingertips. I was happy to meet with the municipal council of White River this past summer, and I listened to their concerns about their water quality problem. After that meeting, my officials met with the clerk and the engineers who were looking into this problem for this particular community. After much talk and consultation they decided it would be more prudent to look at all the different alternatives to deal with the problem of water quality in this community. I understand that the problem of getting water to this community is that it has to come out of another lake, which is some distance away, and that it would be necessary to build a pipeline from that lake over to this community to get the water supply.

I am listening most sympathetically to this community as they indeed have a significant problem, and my officials will continue to work with them on it.

1450

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the hospital restructuring commission established by the Mike Harris government is deliberating in secret about the future of hospitals in the Niagara region and is expected to report in the autumn of this year;

"Whereas the St Catharines General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital, along with the Niagara rehabilitation centre, have in the past provided excellent medical care for the people of St Catharines;

"Whereas the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Port Colborne hospital and the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby have been key centres of health care in the Niagara Peninsula;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to maintain existing medical services provided at these hospitals, restore the proposed $43-million cut from operating funds for the Niagara hospitals; and

"That the Ontario Ministry of Health provide additional funding to expand health care services available in the Niagara region for residents in the Niagara Peninsula."

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

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition from hundreds and hundreds of people in my riding who are concerned about school closures. It reads:

"We, the undersigned taxpayers of rural Ontario, oppose the current Ministry of Education and Training funding formula in relation to rural boards. We believe that special consideration should be given to the fact that our population is spread out over a wide geographical area. A blanket funding formula for such a large and diverse province as Ontario will not work for all citizens equally."

I sign it to make an official record of this.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

In support of this petition, I affix my signature.

MUSKOKA DEVELOPMENT

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition regarding the proposed sale of the Muskoka Centre property and subsequent redevelopment to a high-density condominium resort conference complex. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the sale of this site by the Ontario Realty Corp on behalf of the provincial government on grounds that the request-for-proposal process was unfair. The ORC permitted the winning bidder to purchase the site for a low price and to switch the proposal from a private school and training centre to the highest-density resort complex in Muskoka after executing an agreement of purchase and sale. The result of this is that other bidders lost the competition to a bid that was not even submitted prior to the close of the bidding date. No other competitive bids were requested.

"We are opposed to this development because of the high density on a small acreage and its potential for ecological destruction to both the land and the waters of Muskoka Bay. This bay is an extremely narrow, heavily trafficked, ecologically challenged body of water with no fresh water supply except through a 60-foot channel to Lake Muskoka.

"This development threatens not only the quality of life of the residents and users of the bay but also their safety.

"We want the provincial government to stop the sale now before cabinet approves it; we want them to conduct appropriate environmental studies on the site and on Muskoka Bay to determine appropriate use of the property and, following these, begin the RFP process again.

"We want the municipal government of the town of Gravenhurst to have public consultation with the residents of Muskoka Bay and surrounding area to ensure that this historical site is redeveloped only in a manner that will maintain its traditional role in the community; also in a manner that will protect the lands and waters of Muskoka Bay from further environmental pressure and will maintain the quality of life for its residents and users."

This petition is signed by 736 residents. It has been put together by Mary Lynn Beaven and the Muskoka Bay Association, and I am pleased to present it today.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 30 people.

"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."

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

"Whereas Mike Harris has imposed skyrocketing taxes on small business owners in Windsor because of his government's downloading debacle;

"Whereas many small business owners in Windsor who pay commercial property taxes face tax increases of more than 100%;

"Whereas the Harris government tax assessment system is confusing, chaotic and an administrative nightmare for municipalities;

"Whereas the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers called the Harris tax assessment system a `high-risk strategy' that will create `serious problems' for taxpayers and municipalities; and

"Whereas Windsor small businesses facing massive tax increases will be forced to pass on these increases to their customers, causing a decrease in business and causing the Ontario economy to suffer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to devise a fair and uncomplicated system of tax assessment."

I join the merchants in the Riverside BIA, the Pillette Road BIA, the Ford City BIA and the Wyandotte Street East BIA in signing these petitions.

DENTAL CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege to present a petition on behalf of the Honourable Janet Ecker, who as minister is unable to present but asked me to present the petition. There's a very interesting covering letter from one of the petitioners, Elizabeth Pagnello -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I'd like you to either read the petition or explain it.

Mr O'Toole: To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas a new schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act; and

"Whereas the new schedule fails to meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities, reduces services, places barriers to accessing care and creates an environment for various different dental programs across Ontario; and

"Whereas the move away from an emphasis on prevention under the new dental schedule brings significant health risks for children and people with disabilities who are often least able to practise good oral health; and

"Whereas the new dental schedule interferes with the patients' rights to consent to treatment by requiring administrators, and not patients or substitute decision-makers, to authorize and deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas there is no method for the patient to appeal a decision by a plan administrator to deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas pre-authorizations, called predeterminations in the new plan, will require that a higher level of confidential patient health information be disclosed to dental plan administrators; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has caused confusion among patients by introducing the plan without prior consultation and has not included any affected patient groups in consultations after releasing the new dental plan;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to delay full implementation of the new dental plan until the requirement for predeterminations is removed, patient confidentiality is protected, the plan emphasizes prevention in oral health care, and the government consults directly with affected patients to ensure the new plan will meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities."

I'm pleased to present this petition.

1500

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

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

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services;

1500

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study;

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with these sentiments.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to reinvest money back into the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals in Hamilton.

"Whereas the Harris funding cutbacks are having a devastating impact on hospitals and patient care across Ontario, and have resulted in an anticipated $38-million deficit at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals; and

"Whereas the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals will receive $4 million less in revenue from the Ministry of Health and other sources; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris funding cuts are causing a crisis in hospital care in Hamilton-Wentworth, with hospitals facing huge deficits, cuts to patient care and bed closings; and

"Whereas Scott Rowand, president of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp's hospitals, spoke out recently in the Hamilton Spectator saying, `For the first time in my career, I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures of programs and services needed by the community'; and

"Whereas Mr Rowand went on to say: `We need more cash in the system and we need it now. And that is cash to deal with the issues that we are dealing with today. Don't ask us to do anything more because people in the system are at their limit.'

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government stop underfunding Ontario's hospitals to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and act immediately to restore funding to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals so they can continue providing quality health care services to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth."

I continue to support the petitioners in favour of helping Hamilton hospitals.

GERMAN HERITAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of German descent have been a part of Ontario's history since the days of pre-Confederation; and

"Whereas the German culture has always been an integral component of the cultural mosaic of Ontario; and

"Whereas we wish to demonstrate official recognition of the positive contribution of German heritage in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass the bill entitled the German Pioneers Day Act and we respectfully petition the government of Ontario to designate the day following Thanksgiving Day as the date of the annual German Pioneers Day."

I will be happy to affix my signature.

PROSTATE CANCER

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

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario in 1996;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Minister of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement.

SCHOOL PRAYER

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here signed by a number of members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, number 370. It reads generally as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, are firm supporters of the public school education system and the Protestant faith;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."

DENTAL CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas a new schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act;

"Whereas there is no method for the patient to appeal a decision by a plan administrator to deny dental treatment; and

"Whereas pre-authorizations, called predeterminations in the new plan, will require that a higher level of confidential patient care information be disclosed to dental plan administrators; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has caused confusion among patients by introducing the plan without adequate consultation and has not included any affected patient groups in consultations after releasing the new dental plan;

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

"Delay full implementation of the new dental plan until the requirement for predeterminations is removed, patient confidentiality is protected, the plan emphasizes prevention in oral health care, and the government consults directly with affected patients to ensure the new plan will meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with the petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Mr Sterling moves that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 68, An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, when Bill 68 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and, at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on administration of justice;

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(h) shall be permitted;

That the standing committee on administration of justice shall be authorized to meet for one day at its regularly scheduled meeting time for the purposes of public hearing organization;

That the standing committee on administration of justice shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill at any time during its regularly scheduled meeting times as deemed necessary by the committee and for four days during the November recess;

That, pursuant to standing order 74(d), the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the committee;

That the committee be authorized to meet for a further two days on its regularly scheduled sitting days for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and that the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on the second day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

That, at 4:30 pm on the final day of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration, or not later than November 30, 1998, whichever is earliest. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on administration of justice, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of such time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote on third reading of the bill may, at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House, be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

1510

I will be sharing my time with the members for Cambridge, Quinte, Scarborough Centre and Kitchener, and will leave the floor to our members.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): We are debating a motion to limit debate on Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act. I will be speaking on behalf of the Attorney General and will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre, the member for Quinte and the member for Kitchener.

In the past 30 years, the demand for legal aid has changed but the legal aid plan itself has not changed to meet this need. The legal aid status quo is no longer working for the people of Ontario. The plan needs to do a better job of meeting the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid services. The purpose of this bill is to reform legal aid to meet the needs of Ontarians now and in the future.

We intend to implement reforms through the creation of a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario. This organization would be independent of government and responsible for finding ways to deliver better legal services to legal aid clients.

The time for change is long past due. Between 1989 and 1994, government spending on legal aid doubled. The previous government negotiated a four-year memorandum of understanding to deal with the funding, but there was no corresponding reform of the plan or developing new ways to provide services.

In 1995, when this government assumed office, we honoured the funding levels guaranteed by the previous government but insisted on financial stability and more accountability to taxpayers. During the past three years, we have worked with the Law Society of Upper Canada to successfully bring legal aid spending under control.

The next logical step to reinvent the plan is to improve service and accountability. This legislation would meet that goal by establishing the mandate, governance, accountability, services and funding mechanism for Legal Aid Ontario. The new organization would operate on three principles: better service, accountability for public funds, and independence.

The main elements of the proposed act are as follows: Legal Aid Ontario would be an independent statutory agency; the new organization would be responsible to find better ways to deliver legal aid services; it would be led by an expert board with more public representation; it would be more open and accountable for the use of public funds; a more modern, efficient administrative structure would be established; there would be more scope for innovation and flexibility in service delivery.

In developing these proposed reforms, we conducted two phases of extensive consultation. The first phase began with the first comprehensive review of the Ontario legal aid plan since it began in 1967. In December 1996, against the backdrop of the need for change, the Attorney General established the Ontario Legal Aid Review. The review was chaired by John McCamus, a legal aid professor and one of Canada's foremost legal aid scholars. He was supported by an independent panel. Members reflecting a diverse range of experience were best qualified to provide advice on the future course of the legal aid plan in Ontario.

The task force was asked to make recommendations for a flexible, efficient and effective service that reflected changes in population, laws, and the legal aid needs of Ontarians; in brief, to recommend changes to legal aid that will result in more and better services for all Ontarians.

The panel received input from a wide cross-section of people and groups. Major legal, community and user groups were involved in public hearings. The panel received more than 200 written submissions from individuals and organizations. Examples are the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Last September, the team submitted its review to the Attorney General. This now forms the blueprint for the creation of a new delivery model for legal aid services.

Following the completion of the Ontario Legal Aid Review, our government consulted widely about its recommendations. We obtained input from the public, community groups, consumers of legal aid, legal aid clinics and the legal community in general. We asked them for their views, and the response was consistent. Everyone agreed that after 30 years without reform it was time to reinvent legal aid and that creating a new organization was the best approach. People wanted a plan that was independent of both government and service providers, and they wanted the plan to be accountable, well managed and financially stable.

The proposed legislation we have before us is the result of that consultation process. We have worked with legal aid, the public, the legal community and those representing users of legal aid to ensure that the proposed reforms are balanced, fair and in the public interest. Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, if passed, would accomplish these goals.

Let me provide some detail about the proposed new organization, Legal Aid Ontario. The new organization's focus will be service. It would identify and analyze the legal needs unique to Ontarians from one end of the province to another. Legal Aid Ontario would respond to those needs by setting priorities and developing high-quality services that promote access to the justice system.

Bill 68, if passed, would enable the new organization to enhance the existing certificate and clinic systems. Innovation and creativity would be the hallmarks of the new approach. People and groups would be encouraged to come forward with groundbreaking ideas for new ways to deliver those services. Legal Aid Ontario would continue to expand the pilot projects currently being developed to test alternative and improved forms of service delivery.

However, it is not our intention that the successes of the current legal aid system should be abandoned. Along with the new approaches, the best features of the current system would be preserved. Legal aid clinics would continue to deliver front-line services, as would certificates provided to legal aid clients to hire private lawyers in criminal and family matters. These would continue as the foundation of the delivery of services. The result would be services that are more flexible, effective and accessible for Ontarians.

Stable funding will be the key to this success. The Ontario government has committed to providing Legal Aid Ontario with a guaranteed budget for the first three years of the organization's operations. Provincial funding would be set at the same amount as this current fiscal year. This would provide the new organization with the financial stability it will need to focus on delivering high-quality services and implementing change.

As I said previously, one of the key issues raised during the consultation was the need for more accountability in the use of public funds. Legal aid's annual budget is slightly less than one quarter of a billion dollars. Ontarians rightfully want that money to deliver the maximum amount of high-quality services for people who need them the most. Legal Aid Ontario would be expected to manage its financial resources and deliver services effectively. The organization would be more open and accountable for public money spent on legal aid.

1520

Let me share with you how the proposed legislation would help to ensure Legal Aid Ontario would achieve the goal of accountability: There would be more public representation on the board of directors. The organization's annual report would be tabled in this Legislature. The Provincial Auditor would audit the organization every year. Legal Aid Ontario would be required to obtain the Ministry of the Attorney General's approval for annual budgets, three-year funding projections, an annual business plan and multi-year strategic plans. These reforms would ensure that the organization uses its budget to deliver the maximum amount of high-quality services and that the costs are consistent with its budget.

We are proposing a governance model that will enable Legal Aid Ontario to be managed in a more modern and efficient manner. That leadership would come right from the top, from a governance structure that would be led by an expert board of directors. These directors would have the skills and experience necessary to manage the new organization. They would have broad expertise in the law, the justice system, business and financial management, and expertise in the provision of services to legal aid consumers. The board would be chosen from members of the public, legal aid consumers, the business sector, the legal profession, and reflect Ontario's geographic diversity.

I believe that the model, as proposed, will in fact bring us into a new age of legal aid in this province. I now thank the Speaker and would have the next speaker address the House.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It's my honour to stand today in support of Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, to serve people in our communities who need legal aid.

I want to take you back, Mr Speaker, a little bit into the history of legal aid. Prior to 1951, there was no legal aid per se in the province of Ontario. It was supplied by lawyers who had clients who needed that basic service. Those lawyers, on their own, made their choice and said, "This is something that we can contribute to our society."

The lawyers did that on their own and it worked reasonably well in some cases and not so well in others. This is one of the reasons that with the voluntary plan from 1951 to 1967 the lawyers got together as a society and said they must have a Law Society Act to make sure that they could supply legal aid to the people who were having trouble meeting the requirements of paying for the law, for them to have lawyers represent them in court and to be there.

The joint committee on legal aid was established in 1963 when by the early 1960s it appeared that the voluntary plan did not meet the growing demand for what was needed in our legal aid community. In July 1963, the government appointed the joint committee on legal aid to make sure that they could address the concerns and answer the concerns of the then Attorney General. Three members were appointed by the law society to hold public hearings across the province and to make sure that they could conduct a forum that was fair for everybody across the province. In 1965, the report of the joint committee put together the views and what the charges were and established a system where there would be some monies put aside for those people who were serving as lawyers to those clients, so they would receive some remuneration for their efforts.

Therefore, it started in 1963 and the Legal Aid Act of 1966, proclaimed into law March 29, 1967, followed the bulk of the recommendations of the hearings that went on for some two and a half years to establish the Ontario legal aid plan. The plan was based entirely on the judicare model and administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

It went on for some time from 1966, and in 1973 the government appointed a provincial task force on legal aid to assess the performance of the plan. The plan was running a little bit amok and out of direction. They thought there should be a little bit broader coverage, in particular to advise on summary assistance and in poverty law matters such as many landlord-and-tenant disputes, workers' compensation and welfare entitlement cases. There were significant geographic gaps in coverage in our province, some areas receiving good coverage and some areas receiving no coverage.

The funding went on from 1973 until 1995. In 1995, the third party brought into being that the fund was way out of whack, that there was a lid on it, that the criteria they were putting out for all the information for legal aid, the certificates that were being picked up, all of a sudden were growing at a very dramatic rate. They signed an agreement with the law society to make sure that the society tried to keep those costs in check, making sure that legal aid stayed within the framework they had intended.

In 1995, as this government assumed office, we realized that the cap of some $275 million, with a memorandum of agreement that would expire in 1998, was going to run way over. When that amount of money was going to be passed, as a government we were trying to keep control on our costs and to make sure that every department worked within the budgets we had. We had to go to the law society and ask them to implement some changes and get a handle on keeping the cost of the operation down. The cost of legal aid had swelled over the amount that was there and looked as if it would quite possibly double. If those kind of numbers were going to double, it would have been very hard for a government to try to meet its budget with one sector of it over as far as it was.

At that time, in 1995, on December 13, the law society decided to take that course and see whether it could put some control on maintaining the cost of legal aid at somewhere around $275 million a year. The law society, in its restructuring, tightened up on the certificates they were giving out to the lawyers who were looking after legal aid. They also brought that back to the point where now, in 1998, they were going to make do with that amount of money. In fact, they were going to come in under budget.

There was a need out there for some people to still have some legal aid and there was an understanding that the law society didn't feel as if it wanted to continue to operate the legal aid system entirely on its own. So there was a structure of administration put together, through a group of people who worked together who decided there was some way that we could remove from the law society the requirement of having to run the legal aid system.

They came up with the idea that there would be some 11 people on a board, some of them appointed by the Attorney General and the rest appointed by the public. They would form the basis of a group of people that would look after legal aid, guaranteeing it to the people of Ontario who need legal aid and still working within that framework. We, as a government, guaranteed that the legal aid system would be funded for the next three years with the same dollars that we have put into it in the past.

That's a little bit of the background on legal aid, and I'm very pleased to stand in support of it today. I turn my time over to other members.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on the motion dealing with Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998.

The legal aid system in Ontario is indeed long overdue for change. The status quo was not working for Ontarians who needed access to legal services. Although the plan has been restored to financial stability, it is not able to provide adequate services to meet the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid through the current system. At the same time, the Law Society of Upper Canada has expressed its view that it did not wish to continue to manage the plan at this time. The law society has proposed that it no longer continue funding legal aid once administration is transferred.

The law society has pointed out that no other professional group in Ontario is required to contribute directly to the cost of a government-run social program. Moreover, Ontario is the only province which currently requires lawyers to pay a levy to fund legal aid as well as a statutory clawback on lawyers' billings. We must remember that the Law Society Act requires the Law Foundation of Ontario to contribute 75% of all revenues earned from a lawyer's trust account to the Ontario legal aid plan. The law foundation will continue to contribute these funds.

1530

The proposed changes build upon the first comprehensive review of the Legal Aid Act in the history of Ontario. Law professor John McCamus chaired the review. McCamus is one of Canada's foremost legal scholars and formed the blueprint for the creation of a new model to deliver legal aid services in Ontario. Recognizing that the demand for legal aid had changed greatly during the past three decades and that between 1989 and 1994 spending on legal aid had actually doubled, the government launched the review to ensure that the $230 million spent annually on legal aid provided the maximum amount of high-quality legal services to those Ontarians who need them the most.

During the legal aid review, major legal, community and user groups were involved in public meetings. The review received more than 200 written submissions.

Following the release of the Ontario Legal Aid Review in September 1997, our government consulted widely to get the public's feedback. We consulted extensively with all sectors of society, from consumer groups working with lower-income Ontarians like the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, St Leonard's Society of Canada, and the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses to representatives of consumer groups who work with disadvantaged communities. This government met with representatives from the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped and from Aboriginal Legal Services, as well as the National Council of Welfare and the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Yet the government did not stop there. This government also met with the legal profession. The government met with the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, the Family Lawyers' Association and the refugee lawyers' association.

This government met and talked with the concerned interest groups because they are the ones who use legal aid and the system of legal aid. They are the ones who are most affected by any changes that are implemented.

The responses we received were both consistent and relevant. The people of Ontario said over and over again that they wanted a legal aid plan that was independent of both government and service providers. They want a legal aid plan that is accountable and well managed, and they want a legal plan that is fiscally responsible. Yet we must at all times ensure that the result of any changes must be improved services for Ontarians.

In preparing for the debate today, I consulted with a number of lawyers myself. I talked to one lawyer from Hamilton who has practised for 30 years. Ted Adler said, "Any changes to the legal aid system in Ontario must ensure that the people who need legal aid in Ontario and qualify for legal aid receive it."

This government has worked with legal aid, the public, the legal community and those representing users of legal aid to ensure the proposed reforms were balanced, fair and in the public interest. I believe Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, if passed, accomplishes these goals.

In order to ensure that the proposed agency has the financial stability to accomplish the proposed changes, the government has committed to three years of stable funding at the 1998-99 level.

The new agency called Legal Aid Ontario will provide high-quality services, it will develop flexible and innovative ways to deliver services, and it will run pilot projects to test their new approaches.

The act establishes the mandate, governance structure, accountability and services for the new organization called Legal Aid Ontario. Legal Aid Ontario would begin operation on April 1, 1999. Until then, legal aid services will continue to be provided by the Ontario legal aid plan, which is operated by the Law Society of Upper Canada under the terms of a memorandum of understanding with the government of Ontario. A plan would be put in place to ensure the smooth transition to the new organization.

Legal Aid Ontario would also be independent of government and be responsible for finding ways to better deliver legal aid services.

The main elements of the proposed act are to create an independent statutory agency to better provide more services to Ontarians. The act will create an expert board with more public representation. The act will ensure the new agency is publicly accountable.

Legal Aid Ontario would be open and accountable to taxpayers through the following measures: representation of the public on the board of directors; an annual report to be tabled right here in the Legislature; and an annual audit to be performed by the Provincial Auditor.

Legal Aid Ontario would also enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Attorney General every five years. Under this memorandum of understanding, it would agree to provide the Attorney General with detailed information on its operation and plans, including its annual business plans and its policies and priorities for providing legal aid services. This act will provide the statutory mandate, board composition, organizational structure and funding mechanism for Legal Aid Ontario.

Part II of the bill will create Legal Aid Ontario. The legislation will ensure that the new Legal Aid Ontario remains independent from both the government and the legal profession. Independence is necessary in order to ensure that the organization represents the public and is not in a conflict with government. Our approach is consistent with legal aid plans in most provinces. Among the 10 provinces, only the legal aid plans of Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick are presently administered by provincial law societies. Six other provinces administer legal aid through an independent statutory organization.

The board of Legal Aid Ontario will be composed of 11 people appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Five will be selected by the Attorney General from a list of persons recommended by the Law Society of Upper Canada and five will be recommended by the Attorney General. The legislation states that the majority of the directors would not be lawyers and no more than three could be benchers of the law society.

The chair of the board of Legal Aid Ontario will be selected by the Attorney General from a list recommended by a committee comprised of the Attorney General, the treasurer of the law society and a mutually agreed upon third party. The board members will be appointed to fixed terms of two or three years and could not be dismissed before the end of their terms without cause.

In drafting this bill, my colleague always remembered one key question: Is what we are doing going to improve legal aid services in Ontario? Since its inception, legal aid has and will continue to issue certificates to private lawyers in criminal and family matters, and this will remain the foundation of service provision. Clinics will continue to deliver front-line services in areas of law which particularly affect lower-income individuals. This bill would provide us with ways to supplement and enhance the existing certificate and clinic programs. At the same time, Bill 68 will ensure that we have a legal aid system that will serve us for the next 30 years.

Legal Aid Ontario will be responsible for high-quality services to meet the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid. It would be obligated to encourage new ways to better deliver services and to ensure that services are cost-effective and efficient. The agency will always be required to establish priorities and policies guiding the provision of services.

The proposed bill provides a statutory basis for the major areas of service delivery. It focuses on the key areas of legal aid law, including criminal, family, clinic and mental health law. But the legislation leaves specific priority setting to the corporation. Legal Aid Ontario could also provide legal aid services in other areas of civil law.

The bill provides Legal Aid Ontario with the flexibility to use a variety of service delivery methods, including but not limited to certificates - these are the vouchers provided to legal aid clients to hire lawyers - community clinics, staff offices, student legal aid societies, aboriginal legal services corporations, duty counsel, and alternative dispute resolution.

We fully expect that Legal Aid Ontario will continue to expand the pilot projects currently being developed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

In order to ensure the stability and continuation of high-quality services, the bill provides that certificates will remain the foundation of the delivery of criminal and family law services.

Some have raised concerns about how these changes will affect immigration and refugee services. The plan will be issuing the same number of immigration and refugee certificates as last year. The bill would guarantee that Legal Aid Ontario would maintain service for immigration and refugees at current levels for two years. Let us remember that although the Immigration and Refugee Board is the responsibility of the federal government, it is Ontario that pays for the majority of legal aid costs for those appearing before it.

The federal government has cut funding to Ontario over the past several years. Federal funding for immigration and refugee cases has declined from $14.4 million in 1991-92 to an estimated $3.8 million in 1997-98. I would hope that the federal government would increase funding for immigration and refugee law services, but then again I'd be holding my breath for more funding from the federal Liberals because it's the Liberal government in Ottawa that has cut over $2 billion in health care funding to Ontario.

1540

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You've given it all away in the tax cut. They gave you money to give away in the tax cut.

Mr Newman: I hear all the members in the Liberal Party here today agree that the federal government has cut over $2 billion in health care to Ontario. If the feds do not care about the health of Canadians, how can they possibly care about ensuring that newcomers to Canada are properly represented?

The Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, provides a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, to deliver better legal aid services to Ontarians. The organization will develop new and innovative ways to better provide legal aid services.

In the Common Sense Revolution we promised the people of Ontario that we would reform the legal aid system, and once again we have kept that promise. Another promise made, another promise kept.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to point out the significant improvements that the Legal Aid Services Act is going to make to the legal aid system.

When the legal aid system was introduced 33 years ago, it was a recognition by the government of the day that there was a significant need to provide substantial financial assistance to low-income Ontarians for legal services. That was to ensure that all citizens of Ontario, regardless of their status in life, would be entitled to proper legal defence in some cases or proper legal advice in others. I would like to point out that it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, which formed the government of the day, which established this new legal aid component of our social safety net. That social safety net, the legal aid system, was for low-income Ontarians.

It is only fitting, then, that it is this party which is working diligently to make significant improvements to the legal aid system. As has been a hallmark of this government, prior to making any changes to the existing system, this government sought out the advice of everyone involved. Everyone affected by any changes was asked to make submissions. In all, during the legal aid review, more than 200 written submissions were considered. The submissions were from a wide spectrum of Ontarians, including groups working with low-income Ontarians such as Elizabeth Fry, the John Howard Society, the St Leonard's Society of Canada and the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. Groups working with the disadvantaged communities, such as the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, Aboriginal Legal services of Toronto, the National Council of Welfare and the Canadian Mental Health Association, made written submissions.

Of course, let's not forget the lawyers' groups. Lawyers' groups were also invited to express their suggestions to improve the system. Submissions were received from such prominent groups as the law society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the refugee lawyers' association. A consistent view expressed by all these groups was that the legal aid program must be made independent both from the government and the legal profession.

The Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, establishes this independence through the founding of a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, which is an independent advisory body, a statutory agency which boasts an expert board of 11 directors. The establishment of this new, independent board ensures that Legal Aid Ontario is no longer in a situation where there will be a conflict of interest between lawyers and/or the government involved in the legal action which may be taking place.

Under this new act, Legal Aid Ontario is an independent statutory corporation established to oversee the delivery of all legal aid services. This is another example of a series of ongoing examples of where this government listened to various stakeholders and acted on their excellent advice.

A second significant improvement needed to the existing legal aid system is the assurance that there will be adequate stable funding of the program to ensure that legal services would be available to those who qualify financially. The Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, ensures stable funding.

I am very pleased to see this government's commitment to provide stable funding. This government is committed to providing three years of stable funding for the new agency at the 1998-99 level of $230 million. However, in providing stable funding, this government is also committed to ensuring that taxpayers' money is being well spent, and it has established a very businesslike approach as to how the new agency will be accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario.

To ensure accountability, the new agency, Legal Aid Ontario, will submit its annual budget to the Attorney General for approval; it will submit an annual report to the Attorney General, which the Attorney General will table before the assembly -

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It's always been that way. What's the difference?

Mr Wettlaufer: - and, I say to the member for Kingston and The Islands, who's heckling me here, something that's very different: An annual audit of the agency will be performed by the Provincial Auditor.

Ontario taxpayers are adamant that they want the legal aid system as a component of the social safety net. However, they are equally adamant that their monies being spent on legal aid are used as efficiently and effectively as possible and that every person, agency and organization receiving public taxpayers' funds be accountable for the funds they receive.

Mr Gerretsen: Absolutely.

Mr Wettlaufer: I'm surprised that the member for Kingston and The Islands is agreeing with me.

I think it is worth noting that at a time when this government is working hard to improve the legal aid system in the province by providing increased funding, providing stabilized funding and ensuring accountability for taxpayers' dollars being spent in the legal aid area, that part of the social safety net, there is a contrast in the efforts of the federal Liberal government, which is again attacking the social safety net that Ontarians have been working so hard to maintain and improve. It's the federal Liberals who are attempting to rip the heart out of the social safety net that Ontarians are building. It is the federal Liberal government which ripped over $2.1 billion -

Mr Gerretsen: - their taxes spent. You've got to be a little bit consistent there.

Mr Wettlaufer: - out of our health care and education funding, and that member from Kingston and The Islands won't even listen.

It is the federal Liberals who have ripped over $15 billion from Canadians in employment insurance tax overpayment, much of it from Ontarians. Let me repeat: It is the federal Liberal government which has ripped over $15 billion in employment insurance taxes from Canadians, with the largest share coming off the sweat of the brow of hard-working Ontarian taxpayers. It is the federal Liberals who are robbing Ontarians of billions more of their hard-earned dollars in the form of increased CPP payments.

You might find it interesting to learn that for every six cents that this government, the Ontario government, was giving back to Ontarians in the form of income tax deductions, the federal Liberals stole seven cents in CPP increases. While this government was striving to give Ontarians back some of their hard-earned money, the federal Liberals were in essence stealing it right out of their pockets.

Where were our provincial Liberals during these legalized tax thefts by their federal cousins?

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Helping the House of Commons pepper spray.

Mr Wettlaufer: No, they weren't even helping. They just sat there, mummified. As we increased funding for health care and the federal Liberals cut back funding for health care -

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): - the member for High Park-Swansea, come to order.

Mr Wettlaufer: What did the provincial Liberals do? They pretended not to notice. They pretended not to notice that the federal cutbacks in health care were affecting the people of Ontario. And they attack this government.

What did the provincial Liberals do when their federal cousins pickpocketed Ontario's portion of the $15 billion in employment insurance premiums? They sat stupefied; they sat blinded.

1550

What are the provincial Liberals doing to protect Ontarians from exorbitant increases in CPP payments? Again, they're doing nothing; they're sitting on their hands.

What are the provincial Liberals doing about the fact that it is their federal cousins who have cut federal spending for immigration and refugee cases, from $14.4 million in 1991-92 to a mere $3.8 million?

Let me tell you what the provincial Liberals are doing about these ongoing and outrageous attacks by their federal Liberal cousins. Again, they're sitting on their hands. That points out the difference between the approaches we're taking, this government, versus the tax-grab, run-and-hide approach that the provincial Liberals would.

Between 1985 and 1995, Ontarians faced 65 tax increases, 32 by the NDP and 33 by the Liberals. Our government has decreased 66 taxes. It will not be hard for Ontarians to see which provincial party has their interests at heart.

It will not be hard for Ontarians to see that it is this government, the Mike Harris government, which reduced taxes and increased their take-home pay; which established a clearly defined economic policy, which has resulted in the creation of 408,000 net new jobs in Ontario, which has resulted in billions of dollars of new investment in the province and has created a thriving business atmosphere; which rewards entrepreneurship and small business for their efforts in helping make Ontario a better place to live.

The Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, part of the social safety net which Ontarians espouse, will significantly improve the current legal aid system, and, as a result, tens of thousands of Ontarians will receive assistance where they need it. I look forward to supporting the act.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for the opportunity, although it's unfortunate I have to speak on yet another motion which closes off debate in the Legislative Assembly. It has become very easy for this government now. Of course, the news media doesn't cover it any more. It's not an interesting thing to the editors, to the top people who make the decision. Time after time now this government invokes what is called a time allocation motion, a motion which chokes off and ends debate on a particular piece of legislation. This is happening to virtually every piece of legislation now.

I find it interesting these days listening to the briefing notes of Guy Giorno - the whiz kid in the Premier's office who makes far more money than even the Minister of Natural Resources, who's in the House with us today, or other ministers or even the Premier; he probably makes more money than the Premier - these notes that he prepares for the government members.

I thought, on this basis, I would recommend they all run in the next federal election, because all they do is talk about the federal government and federal issues. One can understand that they do not want to defend the positions and policies of their own government. I can fully understand that.

Today I heard the leader of the third party say the member for Scarborough Centre was disappointed in the amount of money that was going to Scarborough for health care. I want to at least give him credit for having the courage to denounce his own government. I want to give him that credit, and I want him to know that. He'll use this in his brochure, no doubt, but you've got to use the whole thing if you're using it in your brochure.

What we have here is another example of this government trampling on democracy in Ontario. They started, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, some time ago with Bill 26. When they first got into power, they developed, with the help of some senior people in the civil service, but more importantly with the unelected advisers, the whiz kids - the 20-something and early-30-something individuals who lurk in the Premier's office have far more power than any individual member of the Conservative caucus, or indeed probably most of the cabinet. Privately I know the members would be prepared to concede that that is the case, that these people have more power.

They developed a massive bill, Bill 26 - it's part of this whole idea of these time allocation motions and how often they are used - a bill which gave, for instance, unprecedented power to a commission to close hospitals in this province. That's the so-called Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission, I believe is the name of the commission. I call it the hospital closing commission.

Like Darth Vader, they are appearing in St Catharines tomorrow, complete with some of the well-known Tory appointees who are sitting on that particular commission, making pronouncements on the future of health care in the Niagara region. I would just as soon they stay out of the Niagara region and that instead the government provide appropriate funding for our hospitals to enable them to carry on the outstanding work they've been doing for so many years in the Niagara region. Bill 26, part of this package of the trampling of democracy, apparently gives this commission unfettered and unquestioned powers to close hospitals, to force hospitals to merge, and to take away services from certain hospitals.

I hope the reaction tomorrow - and I know if it came to your area, Mr Speaker, you would feel the same way - isn't this: that the so-called winners, the people who are untouched, say, "It's the only thing the government could have done; we understand," and the heck with everybody else who is not categorized as a winner. I hope that's not one reaction.

I hope as well there aren't people in the Niagara region saying: "Gee, we thought it was going to be far worse. We thought they were going to close five hospitals, and they only closed three," or they took away the services or they forced this one to merge. It's as though you say: "Thank you, Mike Harris, for amputating my leg at the knee. Thank goodness you didn't amputate it at the hip." What I'm saying is, the leg doesn't have to be amputated at all. The only thing that has to be amputated is the Mike Harris government from the people of this province for bringing upon the people of the Niagara Peninsula and other areas the hospital closings. We have seen 40. I thought it was only 35, but I was reading some information provided by the legislative library for the committee which deals with appointments. These are Tory appointments that we get on a weekly basis, friends of members of the Conservative government who come before a committee and get rubber-stamped by the members of the committee.

Mr Shea: Like Floyd Laughren.

Mr Bradley: Well, with the odd exception. They always have the odd exception in there so they can say, "Well, what about Floyd Laughren?" or "What about Dave Cooke?" They always have those exceptions.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): You notice there are no Liberals.

Mr Bradley: I noticed that. I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for saying, "You notice there are no Liberals." Now, of course, the new game is that the Conservatives and the NDP are supposed to play footsie. My friend from Cochrane North shudders in his shoes when he hears this happening. Buzz Hargrove has just launched his new book called Labour of Love, which is going to be on the bookshelves of the province. I would imagine that the friend of all members of this House, the friend of workers in this province, Buzz Hargrove, or Basil as his real name is, is going to be very concerned when he sees the Tories and the NDP together and somebody pulling up the sheets. They are diametrically opposed but they both recognize that the threat to them would come from the Liberal Party in Ontario rather than the Conservative Party, so they're busy playing footsie. I know some of my NDP friends are very uneasy about that and, I'll tell you, I don't blame them for being uneasy about that.

My friend the whip will tell me how many motions of closure we've now had. I'm sure it's -

Mr Gerretsen: Twenty-eight.

Mr Bradley: He says 28, at least. I expect there may have been even more attempts by this government to close down debate in this Legislature if we look carefully.

You will remember what they did with Bill 26, which is part of this whole package, and with the new rule changes, because of course the debate this afternoon really revolves around the new rule changes which allow the government to invoke closure whenever it sees fit and to limit debate in a variety of ways. What happens now is that issues such as this and issues such as the closing of hospitals cannot get the kind of debate they should. We have Darth Vader, as I say, coming in to the Niagara Peninsula before Halloween. We have the Halloween gremlins coming in the form of the restructuring commission or the hospital closing commission to make pronouncements in the Niagara Peninsula.

1600

I hope they've gotten the political message. The minister says in the House, "Well, it has nothing to do with me." I asked her a question last Wednesday about this in the House. I never did see coverage of that in the St Catharines Standard, but I'm sure there are other things that probably bumped it out.

Anyway, the question was asked in the House last Wednesday and the minister, like Pontius Pilate, got out the bowl of water, washed her hands and said: "It has nothing to do with me. It's the big, bad commission." Yet I hear the member for Niagara South, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, saying he's going to the Minister of Health to plead the case of various hospitals. You can't have it both ways. Either it's totally independent or it's subject to pressures, the government is subject to pressures.

I think that with the election closer we are more likely to see a more moderate pronouncement by the hospital restructuring commission, but again, I don't want to hear people out in the Niagara region saying: "It could have been worse. They could have closed all of our hospitals." They don't have to close any of them.

If you'll recall, Mr Speaker, and I know you've heard me say this before, Dr David Foot, who is the author of Boom, Bust and Echo, a best-selling book in Ontario and indeed across Canada, a book which deals largely with the demographic profile of our country and our various communities, was asked by a student at Brock University, "If there's only one piece of advice you could give to Mike Harris, taking into consideration the demographic outline of the Niagara Peninsula," that is, that we have the oldest per capita population in all of Canada, "if you took that into consideration, what would your advice to Mike Harris be?" He said, "Don't close hospitals." I expect then we won't see hospitals closed.

There's a second reason. I remember, as you will, Mr Speaker, in May 1995 watching the leaders' debate. Robert Fisher of Global TV asked the Premier about whether his plan for health care in the province would involve the closing of hospitals. His answer was, "Certainly I can guarantee you, Robert, it is not my plan to close hospitals." Now, 40 hospitals, private and public, have been closed or merged in this province, according to the information provided to the government agencies committee, the committee that deals with the friends of the Tories who are being appointed to various positions in the province. That is provided by our legislative library. That's 40, despite the Premier's promise that he had no plans to close hospitals.

I hope there are pangs of conscience and that we don't see hospitals closed in our area. In fact, with the elderly population that we have, we require not only chronic care - yes, everybody understands there has to be chronic care and there has to be good home care, well financed, well placed, very readily available and accessible. That is the case, most assuredly. But we also need acute care, because as members will understand, what they're doing in hospitals now is kicking people out in a quicker and sicker manner, not because the hospitals want to do it but because they've had the edict from the provincial government: "You can't keep patients as long."

Let's take an example. They may be in one of our local hospitals in the Niagara region and may go to the Linhaven Home for the Aged. Patients used to go after they had been looked after in the acute care hospital, so the level of care was not quite so high; that is, the level of care required in the nursing home, the home for the aged, called Linhaven. Now they're getting patients that require acute care, and pretty intensive care, coming from the hospital as they're shoved out the door at an earlier rate.

What this means, of course, Mr Speaker, as you understand very well, is that people who leave the hospital in a sicker state are people who usually have to return to hospital. So we really don't solve a problem if money is all they're looking at.

People also phone my office constantly and tell me that the level of care available in hospitals today is not what it was 10 years ago. They say if you had been in the hospital 10 years ago or had someone close to you in the hospital 10 years ago, you notice a substantial difference in the way hospitals are operated and the level of care. Is that because the staff want it that way? Most assuredly not. The nurses are working extremely hard to meet the needs of the patients, the members of the medical profession who are doctors are working hard to meet those needs and the non-medical people and people who assist nurses and doctors are working extremely hard, but there are fewer of them.

When you lay off 225 or 250 people from a hospital because of government funding cuts to the hospitals, then of course you're going to get a different level of care. You're not going to be able to keep the hospitals as clean as they were. You're not going to have nurses who are able to respond when somebody sounds an alarm to come down to their room or to do the routine things that used to be done in a hospital setting. All of that so we could a tax cut while we are running a deficit.

When you talk to economists out there, even small-c conservative economists, they just shake their heads at the fact that this government has invoked income tax cuts while it is running a deficit. Most of them will say, "Look, if you're going to cut taxes, if you're going to have a tax cut in effect, wait till you've balanced the budget, and then you don't have to be involved in all these cuts."

In Niagara region, there was a projected $43 million to be cut from the operating budgets of hospitals. They had a local commission they set up, under former regional councillor Rob Welch, who was on regional council for a number of years. But the cards they were dealt were all deuces, because they had to come up with a program, a plan, a report that took into account the fact that there would be $43 million withdrawn by Mike Harris from hospital funding in the Niagara region before they made their pronouncement.

Tomorrow the verdict will come down. I hope the verdict is that they've listened to the thousands of people who have signed petitions, who have written letters, who have called the constituency offices of the local members of provincial Parliament and who have gathered in huge rallies denouncing the possibility of the closing or significant alteration of the services in the hospitals where they have a particular interest. I hope the government listens. I hope the commission has listened. I hope the commission recognizes the unique circumstances facing people in the Niagara region.

It is absolutely appalling to see the level of services available to psychiatric patients in the Niagara region, and we hear they're going to close the psychiatric hospital in Hamilton. I don't know how you're going to solve these problems. They say, "We're going to solve them in the community," and yet the community services have not been put into place to deal with these individuals. So we've got a complete mess as a result of the funding cuts by Mike Harris in hospitals in this province, including the Niagara Peninsula.

I've been trying to get from our local hospitals - I've not been successful so far; I can probably understand why - the figures on the bypasses, that is, the times that ambulances are redirected to other hospitals because the emergency care department at one hospital cannot receive them. With the hospital destruction commission lurking in the background and about to pronounce tomorrow, I would think they're a bit reluctant to provide those figures to an opposition member, because of course everybody is running scared.

If there is one thing this government has been good at, it's bullying people, it's saying to people, the implication is always there, "Don't you dare criticize or your hospital could close or you could see a reduction in your services." I notice that Mike Harris has sharp elbows when it comes to people who are vulnerable but is a pussycat when it comes to dealing with the oil companies, which keep raising taxes in this province.

1610

Mr Newman: What about legal aid?

Mr Bradley: This is a motion on time allocation, not on legal aid.

I'm going to tell you something, the Speaker in the chair was very tolerant of other members of the House making their speeches. One thing I've always liked about this Speaker is his understanding -

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: A lot of people don't understand. This Speaker understands that you can bring all these items together and relate them to a motion of this kind. Even though he's a new member of Parliament, he recognized this very early, and I want to compliment the Speaker on that.

What I'll wonder is whether this government will be advertising, whether this government -

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: What's this? His dress and demeanour are also very good. I want to compliment on him that as well. The Minister of Natural Resources suggests I do so and I will do so. He's got his Preston Manning shirt on over there. Preston tries to look like he's one of the folks so he wears those denim shirts. All the politicians were wearing them for a while. I don't have one, but the politicians were. The statesmen were not wearing them, but the politicians were.

So there we are, and I'm wondering, as you must be wondering, Mr Speaker - I know you're wondering this - whether this government is going to embark on an advertising campaign - I don't know if I have any examples on my desk; perhaps I don't - about this bill or about the time allocation motion. The other day, as Premier Harris and his entourage entered St Catharines for the so-called jobs and prosperity conference - as partisan an event as I've seen in a while in terms of the timing that we saw that, but I will get back to that. I want to get back to advertising for a moment.

That same day I went to my mailbox, pulled out yet another pamphlet that looked like it was going to cost three quarters of a million dollars for the people of Ontario, and on it it has, "Please reply." I have a suspicion - I tend to be suspicious about these things - that these will be going to the Conservative Party eventually so that they'll have a list of people they can mail to. That's what it's all about. Not only will it cost three quarters of a million dollars at least to put the pamphlet out, but also the money that people send back in, if they're foolish enough to send their name back in, it'll go on the fundraising list of the Conservative Party.

There it is over there. There's another pamphlet now. We've had them on education, we've had them on everything, and these are paid for by the taxpayers of the province, not the Conservative Party, which is rolling in dough, not the Conservative Party which has money overflowing its coffers because it has done things that the rich and privileged and the powerful agree with. They're not paying for it; it's the grateful taxpayers of Ontario.

I'm assured - because I know this will be the case and my friends in the NDP would agree with me, and the Liberals - that the taxpayers' coalition, ever vigilant about the wastage in government, in the squandering of taxpayers' dollars, will surely be issuing a press release one of these days denouncing the squandering of this money on political propaganda.

I remember my friend Frank Sheehan, the member for Lincoln, used to be the president of the local taxpayers' coalition, and we still have many of them around in St Catharines. They write letters to the editor. I know they have just been too busy to write those letters about the squandering of tax dollars on advertising, the full-page ads, the silly ads that they have in there, unnecessary ads, the jingles on the radio with the Premier's voice and other voices, the television ads that we see during sports events and other times, the pamphlets, all of this massive advertising, all with a very political message in it. Not urging people to get their flu shot; I understand that. That's good, that's productive and there's nothing wrong with that. But when you see the government taking our tax dollars, everybody's tax dollars and squandering them - and this is the government that was supposed to be about cutting, complaining about the previous government and how much it might have spent on advertising.

These are the most partisan ads I've seen. It's an abuse of public office. It's an abuse, I think, of public ethics to be using taxpayers' dollars in this way. I know the National Citizens' Coalition as well will be issuing its press release very soon denouncing this, and all of those groups who are opposed to government squandering money on things it shouldn't be squandered on.

I got off-track on something else I was going to talk about, and the member for Scarborough Centre wanted me to make mention of it. I expect when we see the next bill, because we've got again a time allocation motion, the eighth bill on property taxes - the eighth bill I've got to say, seven of them out the window, out the door because they bungled them. We now have the eighth tax bill coming in, and I think they'll probably apply time allocation to that. In other words, they'll cut off the debate on that.

The whole problem started out because they gave the break to the big-box stores, the huge conglomerates, the large American stores who come in and sit out on the highways and draw everybody out of the downtown and bleed the downtown dead while they sit on the highways and gather people in. They got a tax break. Big stores got a tax break. The banks, the big bank towers in Toronto, were just applauding. If they didn't buy many tables at the Tory fundraiser after getting that break from the Conservative government on their property taxes, I would be very surprised.

I look as well at the oil barons in this province who jack the price of gas up and down as they see fit. The Premier huffed and puffed in this House about it. My friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations says, "Don't see me; go and see Ottawa," because this government is large as life when it involves taking credit and is nowhere to be found when it involves taking responsibility.

I think they should pass a predatory pricing bill which would prohibit the oil barons, the major oil companies, from preying upon the independents by selling gasoline wholesale at a lower price to their dealers and at a higher price to the independents, and then keeping the price down for a little while to drive the independents out of business. I think we should have seen that kind of legislation in this House long ago, but of course this government has no intention of doing that despite the fact that some of the government members themselves, I think, may have a feeling about this. The member for Quinte introduced a resolution of sorts. Mind you, he was told to make it federal and not provincial, but at least he recognized some of the arguments that were being made. Bill Saunderson, our former Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, gave an honest answer in the House. He said: "It's not our business. We'd look like fools if we started to fiddle with the price of gasoline." He was honest about it anyway. Bill was honest about it. I give him credit.

People will say, "Well, isn't that a politically naive answer?" Well, maybe, but it was an honest answer to this House and it truly placed where this government is: not where Mr Huff and Puff is, not where the Premier is huffing and puffing about what he's going to do and then, when he sees the oil barons, he melts away like a pussycat. But he's a lion when he's dealing with some of the smaller municipalities and others who are more vulnerable.

You would want to know, Mr Speaker, in case they come to your area, about the jobs and prosperity conference. The Premier arrives with a couple of cabinet ministers, and they invite some local people. Probably predominantly it would be people who would be in favour of government policies, but there are others there. The Premier protesteth too much. At the beginning, he says about five times that it's non-partisan. Well, I would say that if it had been done three years ago. If three years ago the government had embarked upon this exercise of going to various communities to get input, I'd say sure, good thing.

The cover was blown completely when in came Al Palladini, our pal Al.

Hon Mr Leach: Well, you were there.

Mr Bradley: Of course I was there. Naturally I was there to spy on you people.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I got my quotes too. I saw one quote - I'm glad the member mentioned that. It appeared in the Welland Tribune and the Niagara Falls Review.

This is what the Premier said. The students in this province will like to hear this. The professionals in this province who went to graduate school and had some special education for that purpose to become a lawyer or a doctor or something like that will be interested in this quote.

1620

This is a quote, according to the Welland Tribune and the Niagara Falls Review, from the Premier:

"McMaster University student council president Fayez Quereshy voiced concerns over rising tuition costs and student debt.

"Citing figures Harris later questioned, Fayez said over the past 10 years, student bankruptcy has risen 700% and the average student graduates with a debt load of $25,000.

"Harris said the average student debt load upon graduation last year was $12,100.

"Harris added in his closing comments that youth should be more optimistic about education."

Here's my favourite quote. I quote the Premier and it quotes him in here:

"`I was a little bit disappointed with the amount of pessimism that seems to be there with the cost of going to college or university,' said Harris.

"As for concerns raised about the deregulation of tuition for professional programs, such as medical school, Harris said, `I think the debt may put off the BMW for one more year, but I don't think it ought to be a barrier to anybody.'"

I'm going to say that again because perhaps some of the members did not hear it. If they weren't paying full attention, they may not have heard the Premier's comment. "As for concerns raised about the deregulation of tuition for professional programs, such as medical school, Harris said, `I think the debt may put off the BMW for one more year, but I don't think it ought to be a barrier to anybody.'"

I found this in the newspaper. I had doctors calling me, lawyers calling me, other professionals calling me, those who had gone to graduate school, saying, "What is the Premier trying to imply?" I had others who said, "It's all well and good to deregulate the costs of these programs as far as the university is concerned, because they're going to get the funds, or as far as the government is concerned, because then the government doesn't have to pay that money."

But what about those students who come from modest backgrounds, who are unable to take advantage of our education system because either they don't have any money at all or they don't want to get into debt or they're unable to obtain the kind of good-paying jobs that students used to have in the summer? Now many of the jobs that are available are the McJobs or the jobettes, which are not paying very much money to those students and are not allowing them to accumulate the kind of funds that would be necessary to get a good education.

I know you wanted to have a report on that meeting. My friend Al Leach was in St Catharines. I welcomed him to the city. He got out of town before they uncrated the tomatoes, because of course we know what has happened in terms of the municipal property taxes in the area. They've had to go sky-high as a result of the Premier's downloading. I don't blame Al Leach. I blame the Premier for his downloading program. Al just reads the sheets. He just reads the message. The Premier's people write the message, and I don't blame Al at all on this one. But he's the messenger, so I won't shoot the messenger, as they say. I'll direct my criticism to the Premier.

They said to the local people: "Here you go, we've got a nice trade for you. I'll trade you this, and we'll trade you that," and they came out $21 million short for the Niagara region. Mike said, "Better send some cash down there and make it look good." They sent down a pittance, $3 million. The region is stuck with $18 million as a result of that exchange of responsibilities, and therefore they had to put up the taxes or cut services.

Hon Mr Leach: They still found enough to give a pay raise.

Mr Bradley: The member talks about pay raises over there. I was reading in the newspaper about the Hydro pay raises under his watch. Your government is allowing these Americans to come in to do something to the nuclear system in this province and they're getting sky-high salaries plus a great deal after that. I know he won't be criticizing the Niagara region when he hears what is happening at Ontario Hydro.

Anyway, in the Niagara Peninsula, we've had taxes that have had to go up considerably because Mike Harris has downloaded. They'd like to put this on the tax bill, Al, but they can't, because you people passed a law in here that says they can't put the reason on the tax bill. They had to get another piece of paper and put a letter in there.

Hon Mr Leach: No, that's not right.

Mr Bradley: That happened in this House. You were here.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): That's right.

Mr Bradley: Other members were here, that's right.

I am keenly interested in what the member for Downsview has to say, her expertise being on this bill which this time allocation motion is dealing with. I want her to be able to deal with that aspect of it, and there may be other members - who am I sharing with? I'm sharing with the member for Downsview and the member for Scarborough North, both of whom want to add their comments to this particular debate, and I'm sure that they will be scintillating and most interesting and perhaps persuasive of at least the wavering members of the government caucus who will not vote for this motion of closing off debate on yet another piece of legislation.

Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Speaker: I believe that on an important debate of this kind we should have a quorum. Would you check to see if there's a quorum here, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you check and see if a quorum is present, please.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'm happy to rise on this occasion to decry once again the Conservative government's habit of stopping debate on very critical issues. It's really unfortunate, because this particular piece of legislation is one that we actually support in principle. It sets the framework for moving forward in the area of legal aid. But it's unfortunate because the bill leaves some questions unanswered, and it is through debate in this House that we flush those questions and we come to the appropriate answer. The Attorney General so far has not dealt with the very serious concerns that have been put forward by this side of the House.

While I've said that we support the bill in principle, there is plenty of evidence that the legal aid system has not worked under this government's watch. We are in fact looking at a system that has overcrowding in the courts, where unrepresented litigants simply abound in family court, where we have a decrease in certificates that legal aid issues and where the certificates aren't even available for certain very critical areas where particularly women and children cannot access the justice system.

It's gotten to the point where we have raised this issue time after time in the House and the government finally heard and appointed a couple of commissions, which in turn decried the system that we have and the way it has deteriorated through this government's actions. In fact, two very eminent legal experts looked at the question of legal aid in this province and they reported that in fact it was ill.

1630

This particular bill wants to try and rectify that situation. For that, it is to be commended. What it tries to do is to create an arm's-length agency which will deal with legal aid. It will not be an agency of the government, nor will it be the law society which administers it. It will be Legal Aid Ontario, presumably run in such a manner that legal aid will be available to the people of Ontario.

There are some good points in it. Eleven members are to be appointed to this board. There is to be a continuation of services in certain areas, there is to be an infrastructure which supports legal aid, but there's much that we don't know, and that's why the time allocation motion is so inept at this point.

We don't know how the members will be appointed. We don't know if it will be the subject of patronage. We don't know whether it will be people who truly reflect the diversity of Ontario. We don't know whether there will be a substantial amount of women who have been disproportionately affected by some of the measures taken by this government when it comes to access to the courts. We have no idea whether the process will be one that will allow individuals to take charge of legal aid in such a way as to make it a fair and equitable system. Nor do we know whether the funding that will be available will be sufficient for what's required. This is a critical issue and one that needs to be addressed by this House. That's why the time allocation motion is so inopportune at this point.

We know very well that with respect to this government we have seen tremendous cuts all across the board, but particularly in justice. The Ministry of the Attorney General itself has had cuts in the nature of a third of its budget, and while some additional monies have been put in in recent times, I'd like to list for you some of the cuts we've seen that do affect those very people who need access to the courts through legal: cuts to the special investigation unit for the second year in a row; they disbanded the police complaints commission in October, 1997, leaving people with absolutely no choices if they feel they've been wronged by the police except to go to the courts, and the courts have been overburdened and overcrowded, as we well know, and unable to deal with those very serious concerns.

We've seen some $43,000 cut from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which provides compensation and financial assistance to the families of victims of crime. If you think that's a small amount, just bear in mind that since 1995 this government has cut $1.2 million from that program. So much for their commitment to victims of crime. In addition, they've cut another $1.5 million in support of legal services and victim support, and a further $9.8 million since 1995 from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

What that means is that ordinary people have nowhere to go to seek justice, to seek recourse if they've been wronged except through the courts. It's no wonder that one eminent jurist has stated very clearly that what's happened in the courts is unbelievable, and I quote, "If there is one thing we all agree on, it is that our court system is being inappropriately used as a dumping ground for social problems." That's true, you see it everywhere, because the other avenues, the civil avenues that were available to people in order to press their case, in order to ensure that their rights were safeguarded, don't exist. They've been considered frills by this government and simply discharged.

We have a very serious situation. When we look at the new legal aid structure that is being put in place, we have to wonder, will it have equitable stable funding? We're not talking about lavish funding, but we are talking about stable funding. We know there are any number of areas that have been cut back. Try and get a certificate for things like landlord and tenant, where typically individuals who are at the lower end of the scale need assistance, particularly in the wake of this government's demolishing rent control. There is nowhere for ordinary folk to go to get the kind of support to press their case.

We're talking about the family law certificates and how they have been curtailed. In fact, one of the very reports the Attorney General commissioned indicated that -

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: Yes, they're all Tory hacks. You know what I'm saying.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order. Member for Kingston and The Islands and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, come to order, please.

Ms Castrilli: The reality is quite stark and difficult to face. The fact remains that the government's own reports or reports given to the government commissioned by them indicate that some 67% of litigants in family law are unrepresented because of the failure of the system, the failure of this Attorney General to provide the adequate funding required to provide ordinary people with the kind of assistance they need.

We've become a chequebook society since Mike Harris took over and that's a fact. If you can pay for it, you get it; if you don't have the money, forget it. That's simply not acceptable, not in an area such as justice, which is the fundamental building block of a fair society.

What funding will be given to the system is absolutely critical to understand whether it will work, and we have no idea what that will be. We've been given no indication of what a funding formula would look like. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? Haven't we seen this in other areas? Haven't we seen it in education, for instance?

We plowed ahead with plans to reform the system without an inkling of how we were going to fund it. It wasn't until much later that we got an idea what the funding formula would look like and it has been devastating for schools throughout Ontario, and we're looking at some 300 closures in this province.

That's why we worry about Legal Aid Ontario, this new agency that will be formed. We agree with the concept. You've created an infrastructure which was long overdue, but it remains a shell until you realize that you've got to have people who care running the system and you've got to give it enough money to be able to do its job.

It really is quite appalling how the justice system has failed so many people in this province. When we look around at the numbers of individuals who have been affected, when we publicly state our commitment to victims of crime and we have three women who are compelled to announce that they're going to take the government to court because they have not been treated well as victims of the system, one has to wonder.

One has to wonder as well when people who have been accused of the most horrendous crimes go free because the backlogs in the courts are so outrageous and it takes so long to get these cases to court. We're not talking about people who may have had the odd traffic ticket. We're talking about people who are accused of killing under the intoxication of alcohol. We've had that just recently in the case of a young woman by the name of Rodrigues, and before that there were people who were accused of rape and assault, all documented in the media, all documented in court documents, released because we don't have the resources in our court system. While the Attorney General is busy announcing more infrastructure, the reality is that if we don't fund the services we must provide for Ontario, all the infrastructure in the world will not solve the problems we have.

That is the reason why this time allocation motion is so ill advised. I understand that it's part of the government's strategy to shut down the opposition in order not to hear some very unpleasant things about the real Ontario. The real Ontario is not people who drive BMWs and the real Ontario is not people who can afford luxury pension plans. The real Ontario is people in my riding of Downsview who work hard for a living, who have a mortgage to pay, who want to have their schools open for their kids. That's the real Ontario. They also want to make sure that if they need the law, the law is there for them.

We're left with a lot of questions in this legislation, and it's unfortunate that the Attorney General, instead of dealing with the very real issues we've raised in this House, instead of looking at the concerns we've brought that are the concerns of many, many people in Ontario, seeks closure, seeks to shut down the opposition and to shut down the voice of the people. It won't be enough. I tell the members of the government it simply will not be enough.

We support this bill in principle but we will be vigilant to make sure that it is the absolute, best bill it can be. While you may be shutting down debate in this Legislature, be sure that the debate will continue outside as to the kind of justice you provide for ordinary Ontarians, and we on this side of the House will be making sure that you live up to the commitments the people of Ontario expect you to live up to.

1640

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have to commend my colleague from Downsview for her excellent presentation in such a short time. It focused precisely on the problem we face with this government and its attitude towards democracy.

It is extremely ironic that we are speaking about the justice system and the legal process, yet here we are debating closure and time allocation, limiting individuals' democratic process to express their views about legislation that will have a great impact on them. Furthermore, as we know, the bill itself, which addresses most of those who don't have the ability to pay, takes much more time to get justice done, yet the government has put closure and time allocation on this discussion. It's unfortunate, ironic and almost disgraceful, but consistent in a way.

There have been 28 closures, 28 time allocations. It seems to me we spend more time here debating how government will restrict democracy or how they will restrict in any way how people can get justice, denying people justice. Justice delayed is also justice denied, as the saying goes.

I want to focus quickly on two areas. The bill talks about representation on the board, that an 11-member board will be appointed for two- or three-year terms. It also emphasizes geographic diversity. These days the word "diversity" really becomes rather interesting because it's used in rather creative ways. We ask, especially in the justice system, are all people being served? Are all people from every ethnic group being served fairly, and even from a geographic point of view being served fairly?

I notice the arm's-length way in which this government will behave in this process. Of the 11, five will be appointed by the Attorney General. He's going to find five of his Tory cronies around the place to say they will sit on this 11-member board. Also, this government is putting its hand in again, at arm's length, because the law society will produce another five, a list of people, and the Attorney General again will make his selection from that list, at arm's length of course. The chair of that board will also be appointed by the Attorney General, at arm's length.

One is wont to believe that here is a government that would say, "I want to be for the people and by the people," but they will do it for the people and they are the individuals. No wonder they coin themselves as, "We are not government; we are only here to fix government." It tells you exactly what they are. They will do everything they can to undermine the system, put it in the hands of their own friends and then blame it on other people.

Each day they will blame either the federal government or some other individuals for causing this situation today. They will blame teachers, they will blame doctors, they will blame firemen, they will blame welfare workers or welfare recipients. They blame everyone. But the real blame for why the system doesn't work in an effective and democratic way is because of this government and the very undemocratic, bullying way in which it has carried on its mandate for the last three years.

That is what is so ironic about the process of justice. Here is a government that cut back on the money for the SIU for two years in a row. There is no access if you want to have justice done. They disbanded the public complaints commission in October 1997. In fact, the appalling thing about this situation is that, while I am one of the first to talk about the excellent job the police in our society do each day, each minute, putting their life on the line each moment, somehow in regard to those individuals who have sometimes made it bad for the others and would like the public itself to make some sort of complaint, here is a government that has denied access, denied an avenue by which the public can come and make their complaint, making the police force a better place, making the justice system better.

On the one hand, you're talking about having access to justice and, on the other hand, you're restricting it completely from being improved unless they have their hands in it. No wonder, as we reform this system, they have their hands so deep into it there is no reform for betterment, I would say.

My party applauds the fact that the legal aid system should be changed and should be improved, because there are people who are very much denied having their day in court at all, denied even getting a day to go to court, because they haven't got the right cheque book or they haven't got the right bank account.

I've spoken to many lawyers who have done a very good job sometimes defending people at no cost, as a matter of fact at a cost to them, because the individuals have no money. They extend themselves in some ways that they have to take it out of their own pockets.

But I don't see that this will help to the extent that it should. I think this legislation should go out to be discussed and debated properly, to make it accessible to the individuals who are most concerned, so that they themselves can say what's wrong and where they want it. But no, the government of the day, this Conservative Tory government, has used a sledgehammer right through, has decided: "No way. We will shut this debate down and we will ram it through the way we want. We know what's right."

It reminds me of the Mulroney government: "We know what's right. Do you know why the people have given us this strong mandate?" Do you remember that? They said, "They've given us this very strong mandate to govern, and if they don't like us, they can kick us out next time around." What happened in the next election to the largest majority Conservative government ever? Behold, the people spoke out. What did they do? They kicked those arrogant Tories out until they could meet in a telephone booth and they would have space, the cabinet committee along with them. They kicked them all out.

These nice-looking, wonderful-looking Conservatives over there remind me of the Titanic. They are so glib, lots of life, a lot of flash, a lot of arrogance, and unsinkable. They're like the Titanic.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Now we're here with you. Aren't you lucky? Now we're here with you, Alvin.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean, come to order.

Mr Curling: Lo and behold, they will hit the iceberg. The iceberg you will hit is the people out there who are saying to you, "You are here to govern for us, and you are governed by us."

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kitchener.

Mr Curling: As soon as they have lost that point of direction, they have lost democracy, the will of the people, they shall meet you at that wonderful gate of election day, when they shall turn you and show you where you should go. I hope that while they listen with patience, with such tolerance in this wonderful democracy we have, tolerance of Canadians and Ontarians, they shall wait that turn and then they shall cast this lot out as they cast the Mulroney lot out.

Mr Gerretsen: As I'm winding up this debate from our perspective, let me just remind the people of Ontario once again that closure has now been invoked for the 29th time. While doing my research for this debate, I took a look at all the other bills in which closure has been invoked. It's very interesting that three of those bills are dealing with the same subject matter that we're going to deal with again very soon in this House, and that is to get the property tax system for Ontario correct once and for all.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Come on, talk about the bill.

Mr Gerretsen: Mr O'Toole wants me to talk about the bill, but what I'm talking about is closure. He doesn't understand that what we're discussing here today is not necessarily the merits of the bill; we're talking about a contemptuous government that is once again stifling debate.

As I said before, on at least three occasions in the past they have done that with the property tax system in this province. The first time they did that was October 2, 1997, more than a year ago, when the opposition and other people out there said to the province, "What you're doing is wrong." You may recall they called that bill the Fair Municipal Finance Act, and it turned out to be totally wrong. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing knows that's correct. They did it again on June 1 this year on Bill 16 and on June 2 on Bill 15. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that this government keeps attacking the small business operators of this province on a continual basis in order to benefit large business. If somebody on the government side, within cabinet, at least had the decency and honesty to get up and say, "Yes, that's what we're doing; we think the bank towers in downtown Toronto are paying too much in real estate taxes and we think the small business owners and operators throughout this city and province should pay more," then at least I would have some respect for them, because that's what they're doing and they would be honest about it.

1650

They somehow think they've got it right this time. A fellow by the name of Doug Watson, who's president of the Oakville Chamber of Commerce, said, and I think that he probably sums it up extremely well: "What the government's doing here is just not fair. This is going to the well again."

It just doesn't make any sense. We're in the last quarter of 1998 and most business have established their budgets. If you're running a small business, you establish a budget and you set aside so many dollars for rent, taxes, heat, salary costs and everything else. What has happened here is that all of a sudden a great number of businesses in the province, yes, will benefit. Instead of the 600% increases they were expected to pay in some cases - and that, by the way, is from the minister's own press release last Friday. Minister Eves said yes, some businesses under the old scheme would be paying as much as 600% more in property taxes this year than they did last year. Basically he said: "That's not fair. We've got to cut it back."

What should be clearly understood is that if you're rolling it back for some people, other businesses are going to have to pay more. The member for St Catharines-Brock sort of looks at me in amazement. He doesn't believe me. Look at your own legislation. Look at your own press releases. We're just talking about taking the same pot of money and redistributing how much everybody within the business property tax classification should pay into that. So if you're giving some people a break, other people have to pay more. This from a government that likes to pride itself on good, sound business practices, to once again totally foul up the system.

We are now, today, at October 26. Almost 10 months of this year have passed and many property owners in Ontario are now going to get another bill from their municipality. Think what you're doing to the local councils, by the way. They've already sent out one bill telling a business, "You owe us $3,000 in taxes," and now they're going to send out another bill saying, "I'm sorry, it's really $5,000 in taxes."

I hope that the legislation, once we see it, at least will not have a clause in it whereby the municipalities will not be allowed to explain what has happened here to their local taxpayers. You may recall that earlier on, in one of the earlier bills, municipalities couldn't even send out a notice to taxpayers as to what really happened. They couldn't send out an explanation. The Minister of Municipal Affairs got quite irate about it. He didn't want any explanations sent at all. I sincerely hope that the municipalities will be allowed to send out an explanation as to what's happened here, because it isn't their fault. I know that over the last week or so there has been a concerted effort by the government side to basically say, "It's not our fault." This is the spin-doctoring. "We'll tell people it's not our fault, it's the municipalities' fault."

I can tell the people of Ontario it is not the fault of the municipalities; it's the fault of this finance minister, it's the fault of this cabinet, it's the fault of this government for getting this property tax mess wrong seven times in a row, and they still haven't got it right.

Why, for goodness' sake, don't they talk to the experts in this matter? Why don't they talk to the local clerks and treasurers? Why don't they talk to the financial managers? Why don't they talk to the CAOs in this province? These are the people who deal with these matters on a day-to-day basis. They'd be able to straighten them out. But you and I know, Madam Speaker, what this is all about. This is all about taking the property tax load off big business and giving it to small business, taking it off the bank towers in downtown Toronto and letting the small mom-and-pop operations throughout this province pay.

That's not right. Don't time-allocate this. You had it wrong before on three other time allocation motions when we dealt with exactly the same matter and you're doing the same thing with legal aid as you've done with the other bills.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I always like listening to my friend from Kingston and The Islands talk about my favourite topic of property taxes, but I want to start my comments today by coming back to this issue before us, which is a time allocation motion on Bill 68.

I say this not at all to be critical of my colleague from Kingston and The Islands, because I think he was talking about some very important things, but to note that when I was listening earlier to the Conservative members speaking to this time allocation motion, you would have thought they were actually here debating the bill. That may just be a parliamentary nuance, but I found it interesting that every one of the members from the Tory caucus that got up actually wanted to speak about Bill 68. That's great. My only question to them is, why did they not simply tell their House leader that they wanted another day of debate on Bill 68 and tell him not to bring, as he has done instead, this closure motion that stifles debate, that ends debate on Bill 68?

Usually I find time allocation motions not particularly helpful. I understand why governments, from time to time, have to use them. I was a member of a government that, from time to time, used time allocation motions, so I'm not going to stand here and try to pretend to tell the Tory members that this is something that should never be used. But I think it's interesting when you look at the speed and the frequency with which the Harris government has used time allocation motions. For people who may be interested, that is basically a motion that's brought in, debated for one afternoon and voted upon and, in effect, ends debate on the particular bill we are talking about, in this case Bill 68, an act to change the legal aid system in Ontario.

With this time allocation motion they will then dictate, by the provisions they put in the motion, what will happen to this bill as it goes from here to committee, as it will be dealt with by the committee on administration of justice for a number of days, including during the November recess, which is actually something new, for people who may not know. The House will not be sitting for an additional week during the month of November so that a couple of committees will be meeting, and coincidentally during that week we will not have the opportunity as we do here daily in the House to put questions to the ministers of the Harris government. But I'm sure that was not the main reason the government decided to have this November recess. It was because they wanted to get a number of bills out to committee, bills which we want to see in committee.

My point is that this is a bill on which there had been some relatively good debate so far here in the House. I think there had been, interestingly enough, an expression of support in principle, not just from obviously the government side but indeed from the opposition parties. Certainly we in the NDP caucus have said that while we have a number of questions, a number of important questions that we want to raise when this bill gets out to committee, we will not stand in the way of this bill going through second reading. We support it in principle because we support the basic premise in this bill, which is that it takes legal aid in Ontario from a system that's now run through the Law Society of Upper Canada and gives it some independence from the bar and from government and provides it with a board, a separate body that will oversee it. That's a direction we support.

There are some questions that we have, some very important questions that we want to raise with respect to what will happen between now and then in terms of the transition board this bill envisages needs to be set up as we get into that new format, and also quite frankly some concerns that we have about - the Attorney General, in this case, is the minister responsible - the degree of control that he today, or he or she tomorrow as the case may be, might have or would have in terms of the appointments to this new body.

Of course, beyond all of that we have some significant concerns with respect to the funding of this very important service. We say that as members of a government that had to deal with the realities of the growing costs of legal aid, as a government that tried to provide some stability in funding, albeit with some limits in that funding, for a three-year period, and out of which then came the study that we certainly supported being done by Professor McCamus that's led to a number of recommendations which are reflected in this legislation in front of us.

1700

We started, at least, this debate and go into this issue with a certain sense of wanting to see things move in this direction. But, as I say, we have some questions that we're prepared to see addressed as we go through the committee process.

Before I talk a little bit more about the actual bill and some of those issues that we will want to see, I want to come back for a moment to the point that this was a bill on which there had been some useful debate to date. In our understanding, the bill could have gone out to committee without the government having to resort to this pretty stringent time allocation motion. There had not been any strong disagreement or strong differences of opinion in the discussions that have taken place in the House leaders' meetings about how to deal with this bill in terms of the process of its going through committee, so I am puzzled as to why we are faced yet again by the Mike Harris government bringing forward a time allocation motion to deal with, in this case, not even a piece of legislation that's been particularly controversial in this House.

It is an important piece of legislation. I appreciate that the government is perhaps indicating that they want to proceed with this, and that's fine, that's actually good. But to have to resort, as the government has done once again, to shutting off debate when it wasn't even necessary, when there was certainly on our part, and I suspect from the Liberal caucus, no strong desire to see the debate in here on this bill go on for any great length of time - indeed there was a willingness to get this bill out to committee and for there to be the kind of detailed analysis that can only happen in committee, with us inviting people from the legal community, including people from the various legal clinics and that whole body of individuals who have a lot to say about whether this is a good idea, to what extent it can work and what changes would need to be made to the bill as presented to us today for it to be effective.

I know there will be concerns around funding that people will express as the committee has its hearings. I know there will be concerns expressed about the structure of the board and the degree to which there is this degree of control in the hands of the minister, and those are all things that need to be addressed and can only be addressed in committee. But why the government has again decided to resort to a time allocation motion is beyond me, except for the fact that we see this more and more as a trend by this government, not only in terms of legislation that is controversial, and there have been lots of examples of that going through this House in this past year particularly and certainly even back before then in the last year.

Maybe it's a habit that the government has now gotten into that they can't even get out of when you have, as we have here, a piece of legislation, as I say, that is not particularly divisive in terms of the three parties in the House saying, "We're against it," or, "We're in favour of it." We all generally come at it saying that we want to make things better, that we generally support in principle the direction. Although we have some significant questions and points that we want to see raised and addressed in committee, we tend to be supportive at this stage of the intent of the legislation.

Maybe the government has gotten into this habit of thinking that the only way they can get anything done in this House is to bring in a time allocation motion. If that's what is happening, then it troubles me, because it shows a government that has, quite frankly, gotten to a point where they are no longer able to distinguish between issues where they are clearly in the minority and clearly in a position where the only way they can get their position through is by using the rules of the House that they have set and just ramming the legislation through and a piece of legislation where they actually come forward with something fairly decent in it, and we say, "It's not bad, it's needs some more work, but we're prepared to see it go through." I find it particularly troubling that this government is not able to distinguish that; at least, they're not showing that they can distinguish that, because otherwise there would be no reason at all for this time allocation motion to be in front of us.

I look forward to the discussion that will happen in committee on this bill. I know that a number of my colleagues will want to speak to this. I'm going to be sharing this time, therefore, with some of my colleagues: the member for Lake Nipigon, the member for Sudbury East, I believe, and perhaps even our House leader, I'm not sure. Other members will speak as we go on, as they decide to.

The only other point I want to add is that the whole issue this bill addresses, which we will have an opportunity in committee to get into in greater detail, is really a crucial one for the system of justice in this province to work. I come at this not particularly as a lawyer, although as a lawyer I know a little bit about it, but as someone who spent some time in public life and understands the significance of having not only a justice system that works for those who can afford to go out and hire a lawyer, but a justice system that works for everyone.

The sole purpose and reason for the existence of the legal aid system in this province has been to ensure that those Ontarians who are not able to afford a lawyer will not be left out of the justice system and will not be left out of having their day in court, their case argued by someone who is trained to do that. A great deal of that is work that is carried out through duty counsel in the case of criminal charges, but a great deal of that work also takes place through the legal clinics we have in this province.

I know, as someone who has spent some time - in fact, when I spent my years in law school, I spent four months of that three-year period at Parkdale Community Legal Services and found that to be, from a learning perspective, probably the best of the three years in terms of really understanding what serving the poor people in this province and in this city was all about and the kinds of concerns and issues they dealt with. There were many times that they were not able to get access to the justice system but for the existence of something like Parkdale Community Legal Services.

I know when I follow the work of that body, when I follow the work of legal clinics like Bloor West Legal Services, which serves the rest of the west end of Toronto, and many others that exist not just across Toronto but throughout the province, they have come under increasing pressure as the Harris government has made decision after decision that has affected most directly the rights of average families, and families of low income particularly, whether it's because of the cuts to social assistance or whether it's because of many other changes that the government of the day has made that have resulted in greater demand upon legal clinics to provide support. They have been in very tight situations.

I know the whole issue of funding, while it isn't directly addressed by the bill, is something we need to address and we need to look at, and I know it's going to be an issue that will be raised as the legislation proceeds.

I just want to say hats off to the incredible work that is still being done through the legal clinics despite the funding problems. In my view, they provide the last remaining guarantee that the services we need to provide to Ontarians will continue, because the justice system is not worthy of the name unless we can ensure that all Ontarians, irrespective of their income, have that equal access, and that equal access includes the ability to be represented when they choose by legal counsel of their choice. That is something the legal aid certificate system has provided and that is something we want to continue to see provided.

I will continue to follow this debate with great attention and interest as it goes through committee, to see what improvements can be made both to the structure of the board and the concerns around the funding that will no doubt be expressed.

I say that as a member of a party, the New Democratic Party, which continues to believe very strongly that the approach taken by the Mike Harris government is fundamentally flawed, is wrong and is not in the interests of Ontarians, an approach that has as its basis this famous or infamous 30% income tax cut that very clearly takes sides. It doesn't take the side of the average family out there. The only people who really benefit from this tax cut are not the people who need to resort to the legal aid system for their support; the only people who benefit from that are people who are already reasonably well off.

That's why we have said, as a party, that we, the New Democratic Party - and our leader, Howard Hampton, has been very clear and continues to be very clear on this - would take back that portion of the income tax cut that goes to the top 6% of taxpayers, people who make over $80,000.

1710

Why? Because we believe the $1.5 billion that would be generated by the move is money we need to have. We need to be honest and want to be honest with the people of Ontario in saying how we're going to get that money. That's money we need to have in our public services: in our health care system and our education system in particular, but in a number of other services. That, we believe, is at the heart of what government should be doing, which is to ensure that those public services continue and not to get ourselves back in time to a point where the only way you could get services was if you could afford to pay for them, and if you couldn't afford to pay for them, you had to simply rely on the generosity of those who could afford it.

That's not the kind of Ontario I think we want. It's certainly not the kind of Ontario I want to see for my son, and I'm sure it's not the kind of Ontario many people in this House and across the province would want to see. Yet that's exactly the kind of society we are heading towards with the fiscal actions that this government of Mike Harris has taken.

We're very clear in saying that we're prepared to take and we want to take the side of ordinary families, of the average working family in this province that isn't seeing any benefit from this tax cut. We want to take the side of the kinds of families and the kinds of individuals that have to rely on legal aid services to get their rights protected, whether it's in the landlord and tenant area, whether it's in the criminal system or in many of the other areas, in fighting the cuts to the social assistance system.

I have to say in concluding my comments today that not only do I as a member of the New Democratic caucus find it very necessary to say we are prepared to take sides, and it happens not to be the same side Mike Harris has chosen, but I find it particularly interesting and revealing to listen to and read the comments of the leader of the Liberal Party when he says that to him the responsibility of good leadership is not to take sides. I find that a little bit frightening, actually.

Mr Gerretsen: He didn't say it that way, Tony.

Mr Silipo: I'm reading a quote. My colleague from Kingston and The Islands says he didn't say it quite that way. I'm just reading a quote that's attributed to the Liberal leader in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of Friday, October 23, 1998.

He also said, interestingly enough, that we need to invest. "To fund health care and education promises, McGuinty said he would use a projected one and a half billion dollars" - that's an interesting amount; you've heard this amount before - "in new government revenues that are expected to accompany estimated growth in the Ontario economy."

All of a sudden now he says he's found $1.5 billion from the growth in the Ontario economy. A couple of weeks ago I understand he said that the economy wasn't growing, so he couldn't guarantee that money would be there. I hope he's right. I hope the economy continues to grow. We don't think that money is going to be there, but more important, we believe you need to show people where the commitment is and where the money's going to come from. We believe in saying that very clearly. Time will tell who the people of the province choose to believe and choose to give their support to.

The point I wanted to make on this is that we're not afraid of taking sides. We believe we need to be on the side of families in this province who are not seeing any benefits from the Mike Harris tax cut, which is the vast majority of families in this province. I remind you that 60% of families in this province, 60% of taxpayers, make less than $38,000. That's the vast majority.

We are not afraid - in fact, we're quite proud - to stand on their side and to say we would change the fiscal policies of this government to the extent of taking back a portion of the tax cut. People who are in those low-income - indeed, even people in the middle-income area are not seeing any particular benefits when they trade off the small tax benefit that they see on one side against the reality of tuition fee increases if they are trying to send their kids to college or university, property tax increases that we continue to see across the province, and any slew of other user fees that the actions of the Mike Harris government are causing municipalities and other bodies to have to add on. At the end of the day, for middle-income and low-income Ontarians, there is no benefit from the tax cut; there is only a greater loss of their income and their ability to purchase services and to pay for services and to be able to take care of themselves and their families.

That's why we're not afraid to say that we are on their side. In fact, we want to be on their side, and we want to be clear on where we stand. We think everyone in this House needs to be clear. We particularly find that important to note today, as we are dealing with a time allocation motion again by this government on a bill that deals with a very important issue, which is the legal aid plan and the future of that legal aid plan, and with it, the future of legal services for some of the poorest citizens in this province.

That's something we want to see on a good footing. In order for it to be on a good footing, it's going to require a continued financial commitment by the public coffers, the taxes, of this province. You can't have one without the other. Both of those pieces are significant, which is why we will be very watchful as this bill goes through committee.

I finish as I started, by saying if the government wanted to get this bill out to committee, we were all eager and willing to do so. I don't understand why this government is continuing now to fall into the pattern of having to bring in time allocation motions when a simple end to the debate is something that could have been easily agreed to.

Mr Len Wood: I'm pleased to follow the member for Dovercourt and the comment he opened up with, the fact that the Conservative members - I believe five of them spoke - would like the listening public out there to believe that we're debating a bill here. In fact, all we are debating is that the government feels they have a right to bring in the guillotine, or time allocation, on legal aid for Ontario, Bill 68.

I was in the House last week when our member for Welland-Thorold, Peter Kormos, did the leadoff debate of one hour on this particular bill. He explained very thoroughly the pitfalls he thought were there. All in all, our party feels there's no harm in having a bit of public hearing on Bill 68, and maybe some amendments, and bringing it back in for third reading. But as far as bringing in time allocation, or the guillotine, which we call it, there was no reason for that whatsoever, because there was co-operation on having a fair debate in the Legislature and seeing the bill go out to committee and coming back for third reading, because there are a lot of good things in the bill.

But at a time when we have thousands and thousands of homeless people out on the streets, who are going to be suffering the cold, and some of them are probably going to die, this government is debating time allocation in this Legislature instead of dealing with some of the situations we have out there.

Like I say, there are thousands of men, women and children who are homeless as a result of what this government did to rent controls. It allowed the rents to go out of control, where landlords are evicting the people and there is no place for them to stay.

Hospitals are closing. Some 40 or 50 hospitals are going to close in Ontario so that the government can save enough money to be able to give their tax break to the wealthiest people in the province.

We've made a decision, as the NDP caucus, that during the next election the campaign will be that we ask the people making more than $80,000 a year to give back to the government the tax break they're getting, because that's money that can be used - the $2 billion or $3 billion that is given back - for health care and education.

I have teachers who phone me - one particular school is in Etobicoke - saying that in the middle of September the school decided they had to get rid of two teachers. As a result, they combined classes and now we see 38 and 39. If more people move into the area, there will be a grade 7 and grade 8 that has 38, 39 or 40 students in the same class. Rather than keeping the teachers who were there, they were transferred out of the system. As a result, I'm sure the junior teachers were being laid off.

1720

How desperate can this government be when it wants to sell Highway 407? That was built during the time of the NDP government. The decision was made that rather than wait for the construction of this highway to take place in 2005 or 2010, the construction phase would be moved up and the toll highway would be up and running. Now we see the minister for privatization has brought through a bill that was debated last week. They want to sell off the highway and try to recoup a billion or a billion and a half dollars so that they can give a further tax break to the wealthiest people in this province at the expense of all of the people in this province.

We heard during question period today that the Minister of Natural Resources - and I'm pleased he's here now - thinks that the lands for strife public hearings that were being held around the province were a good idea. Yet thousands and thousands of people showed up at these public meetings and tried to have them shut down, because they know that the only reason the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier want Lands for Life is because they fired 2,500 MNR employees in northern Ontario and now they want to put something else in place so that these employees who were looking after this particular land - they call it the Lands for Life; I call it the lands for strife, as do a number of other people.

Northern communities are being devastated as a result of the cutbacks that have happened within MNR, that have happened within MTO, that have happened within some of the other ministries. We have a situation in Cochrane right now where the Ministry of the Environment has laid off or fired all of their employees and they have nobody to do an environmental assessment so that a lumber company can cut trees to keep their sawmill running over this winter and next spring and next fall. The Minister of the Environment says, "We don't have the people." As a result, hundreds of jobs are being put at risk because of the incompetence of Mike Harris and his Reform-Tories in Ontario. It's shameful to see what's going on. How many schools are going to close? Some 500, 600? How many hospitals are going to close?

All of the government employees who have been laid off were volunteers throughout most of the small communities in northern Ontario, and they did a good job, whether it was out raising money for the Heart and Stroke Foundation or out helping with the kids in sports and other events. They did a good job. Now most of them have been either transferred or laid off or fired. So every community is suffering in northern Ontario.

In my particular region, Kapuskasing being the centre of it, economic development was taking place. There was a 6/70 economic development that was being funded by Shelley Martel, the member for Sudbury East, and after that, Gilles Pouliot, $100,000 a year for three years. Last year, this government cut it off. So there is no economic development. There is no incentive for economic development, because Mike Harris and his Conservatives feel that they can't get any Conservative seats in the north so they might just as well pull that money out and give it to other people.

As a result, people in the north and communities in the north are suffering. They know that even though they might not have a big property tax increase this year, they know it's coming. There is emergency funding that has been put in place to try to tide the communities over till after the next provincial election or up to the next provincial election, but after that there is nothing. As a result, small business people are going to have doubled property taxes and residential taxes are going to go up, and there are even rumours that some communities, in addition to the tax you pay for garbage collection now, might be starting to charge a dollar a bag and different things of this kind.

The highway going through northern Ontario, if you head up towards North Bay and head out to the Manitoba border, Highway 11, is considered to be a Trans-Canada Highway. As it goes through these communities, there are no connecting links in any of these communities I represent, and yet the Minister of Transportation is saying Highway 11 is a connecting link going from one side of the community to the other. As a result, they're going to pass the cost of the maintenance on to the property taxpayers, and as a result municipalities are going to have to decide where they shut down - do we shut down the arenas, the public libraries, other services? - in order that we can make the provincial government look good because of all the dumping and downloading that is taking place.

It hurts all over the province. It hurts in southern Ontario, but it hurts even more in northern Ontario because you do not have the population to support all the dumping and downloading that is taking place.

These are the issues that we should be debating. We should hear the Conservative members debating these issues rather than getting up and talking about legal aid, which we agree with - forming a Legal Aid Ontario company - but in actuality we're dealing with time allocation.

A lot of the other issues around this province are only going to be resolved after this government is defeated and Howard Hampton becomes the Premier of Ontario. These are the days that I'm looking forward to. Ontario is not going to change until Howard Hampton becomes Premier of Ontario.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): It's a pleasure for me to participate in the debate that's going on here this afternoon, which is a debate on the government's notice of motion number 34, not a debate on Bill 68, which is what the Conservative backbenchers engaged in during most of the time they spoke here this afternoon.

I am curious about why we have arrived at a situation where the government feels it is necessary to use its majority to shut down debate on a bill that is so important with respect to access to legal services in this province. The government is here today moving a draconian motion which effectively ends all further debate on Bill 68. Usually when the government moves to use its majority to shut down debate, when the government uses its majority to pass a guillotine motion, the government at least puts up someone, whether it be the government House leader or his designate, to at least try and convince the public that there is a reason for the government to use its majority to do this thing.

I've been in this House on a number of occasions when this government has decided that it has heard enough, usually after not much of a debate, but the government has at least tried to have some excuse, flimsy as it might be, to show the public why they have to use their majority in the way they want to this afternoon.

So it was most interesting that the government put up the minister responsible for women's issues to replace the government House leader this afternoon, and the sum total of her contribution to this important debate this afternoon was to read into the record the very same resolution that is already printed on the business paper today. That was the beginning and the end of the contribution to this debate by the minister for women's issues. That is about the beginning and the end of her contribution to a lot of things in this House, Madam Speaker, as you will well know, because you certainly have been raising issues that are very important to women in the last number of weeks since this House has sat, and the minister responsible for women's issues has consistently been referring those questions to the Minister of Health. I guess, in retrospect, I shouldn't be surprised that the best we could get this afternoon from the minister responsible for women's issues was to have her read what has already been printed in the order of business for today into the record in a formal way.

It says to me that really the government doesn't have any good reason today to be using its majority to slam this motion through this assembly. In point of fact, if you look at the debate which has occurred on Bill 68 to date, it's no wonder the government didn't want to talk about the length of the debate so far and the number of speakers, because there has not been extensive debate on the bill in question. There certainly has been very little, if any, controversy attached to the debate that has gone on in this place around Bill 68. In that respect, it's very different from the majority of pieces of legislation that this Conservative government puts to this House.

1730

As a matter of fact, Bill 68 has been debated in this House for only three days so far. There has been a sum total of about nine hours of debate on second reading: far less, I point out to you, Madam Speaker, than the number of hours the government usually allows for debate before it decides to use its majority to shut that same debate down. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the minister responsible for women's issues had nothing to say about why the government is moving this notice of motion this afternoon. In actual fact, there is no good reason for the government to be using, or abusing, its majority power to shut this debate down.

It reminds me a little bit of a debate that occurred here last week on a government piece of business. Last Monday, late in the afternoon, the minister responsible for privatization introduced a bill to privatize Highway 407. Of course, the minister responsible for privatization feels the need now to try and privatize something because God knows his detractors are very concerned about the very few things that this government has been able to privatize, despite all that was said about privatization in the Common Sense Revolution. If you look at the track record of the minister responsible for privatization, he has managed to privatize Ortech and he has managed to privatized two tree nurseries in northwestern Ontario.

When it came to TVO, when he tried to move on privatizing that fine public asset in our province, people said: "We don't want Polkaroo privatized, Mr Sampson, Mr Harris. We want none of that. We appreciate TVO. We appreciate the educational programming for our kids, we appreciate the educational programming for teachers right across this province, and we want none of that." So he was forced to back off.

The government has done nothing about the LCBO either, even though that was another of the items on the hit parade for privatization.

So we saw last week in this place the spectre of the minister responsible for privatization, a day and a half after the government had introduced a bill to privatize the 407, trying to rush that piece of legislation through as well. During the course of the debate, it was interesting to note how flawed the bill is. There is nothing in the bill which points out what kind of conditions of sale the government is looking at; nothing in the bill to give the public an idea of what they might sell it for, given the significant $1-billion public investment in that same highway; nothing in the bill setting out all the terms and conditions that would be attached to a request for proposal for a government asset, a public asset, worth $1 billion. That's worth something to people out there in the province of Ontario, and we sure as heck should not have a fire sale of an asset that's that important. That is why we're opposed to the legislation.

I point out the trend that just in the last week I have seen occurring in this place with respect to some burning desire this government has to ram through pieces of legislation, to get the job done, to stifle debate, to shut down debate, to get it over and done with.

Here we are this afternoon dealing with the 11th government notice of motion to shut debate down, to close debate down, since this government came back in both the spring and the fall sessions: 11 to date. I think it brings to a total of 29 the closure motions so far that this government has moved since it has been in office. This is the government that promised in the Common Sense Revolution that it was going to consult. The government consults with people whose opinions they want to have as their own, and the government doesn't want to hear from other people. Again this afternoon we are dealing with a similar motion to shut down debate on what is a very important piece of legislation.

The province of Ontario has an obligation to ensure that Ontarians will have access to the legal system in this province, to legal services in this province. We have an obligation to do that, as do other provincial jurisdictions right across this country.

Legal aid is certainly an extremely important part of that obligation because, you will well know, Madam Speaker, there are thousands and thousands of people out there who do not have the money to hire a lawyer to access the court system in this province. For a number of years now, Ontario, as well as every other provincial jurisdiction, has recognized that there are socially disadvantaged groups whose right to a day in court is as important as anyone else's and who deserve to have the financial resources put forward to allow them to do that. That is what is at the heart of the legal aid system, ensuring that this province, this provincial government, guarantees access to those same people who will suffer some disadvantage, who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, so they will still be able to have their day in court over whatever issue it is that they require a day in court.

We are dealing with a piece of legislation that is extremely important to thousands and thousands of people out there who are trying to access our courts for any number of reasons, for thousands and thousands of people who are going to require legal representation to be in the Ontario court system.

What has been interesting about the debate, because I've had a chance to read some of the Hansards, is that there has been very little controversy among the members who have spoken with respect to this same issue. This party is very pleased that the government went forward and asked that a report be done on how to reform the legal aid system because we know that when we were there, we certainly encountered financial difficulties when the federal Liberal government decided that it wasn't really going to fund legal aid any more and when the federal Liberal government contribution to what was supposed to be a 50-50 cost-sharing of the system went down to 7% and, as I understand it from the Attorney General in the debate on this issue, it's now down to about 5%.

We faced a serious financial issue when we were the government in 1993 and when we were the government trying to live up to our obligation as a provincial jurisdiction to ensure that the financial resources were there to make sure legal aid worked. But we are now in a position that we know the federal Liberal government doesn't want to have anything to do with legal aid, doesn't want to have anything to do with assuming its responsibility to ensure that people have access to the courts in our province.

We know that's where the federal Liberals are, but this province has historically had a good program in place that has been administered fairly well with some glitches but that now needs a change. I think most people in this place agree that we should move to an independent body to administer legal aid and that accountability of that independent agency to this government should be very clear in terms of the reporting mechanism and in terms of the number of times, either annually or every second year, when that body has to report to this House about the state of financial affairs.

We agree with all of those things. We have concerns as a party about the composition of the board of the new agency that will head up legal aid matters. We certainly have a concern about the transition team that will be responsible for setting up the new independent agency, and we have a concern because there appears to be absolutely no independent process whatsoever to appoint the five members of the transition team or to appoint the 15 members of the new body, of the new corporation.

The role of the transition members will be extremely important. It falls to them to determine how the agency will be set up, what accountability measures will be in place, what kinds of policies and procedures the corporation will operate under, what the financing structure will look like, how they will be accountable. Their role is going to be tremendously important, and we are very concerned that at present in the legislation it rests solely with the Attorney General to appoint those people. We believe that there absolutely has to be on the transition board and on the new board of the corporation those people who have a background of sympathy, empathy for people who are socially disadvantaged and need legal aid.

1740

All these matters should have continued to be discussed at second reading. In fact, many of these matters were discussed here this afternoon because that's exactly what the government members focused on. It is a shame that the government has moved a time allocation motion. What has happened here today is the government members, who obviously wanted to participate in the debate on second reading, talked about that and had not a word to say about why their government was moving again with yet another closure motion.

There is no reason for us to be moving down this road again. This debate has not been controversial; this debate has not been lengthy. But it is yet another example of the government abusing its majority to shut down debate yet one more time in this Legislature.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I take no pleasure in yet another time partaking in a debate vis-à-vis, faced with a majority muscle, a government that chooses to rule and govern by decree. It's the 11th time that they've invoked closure this year; 29 times overall.

The opposition is being silenced. One more time the opposition is being muzzled, shackled by them. We're talking about legal aid. We're in favour in principle. We support the government's initiative on legal aid: representation, service to the marginalized, to those who need it the most. Yet they're shoving the bill down our throats when we agree with them.

Imagine if you disagree with the government. Are we to believe that sometime in the future Pinochet's Chile will be the rule? Surely Pinochet did not invoke closure. It's true to say that in the latter part of his career he didn't have to. Mind you, I heard, incidentally, and I want to share this with my friends, that Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, asked just as recently as last week - because two weeks ago Pinochet and M^me Thatcher had tea at M^me Thatcher's place - that Pinochet be released. We're not to be overly concerned, because, you see, he helped them during the Falklands War, by staying out of it.

Interjection.

Mr Pouliot: Well, 2,000, 3,000 people disappearing is not of grave concern to some people; to Margaret Thatcher, of course not. I know there are supporters of the Thatcher regime who are sitting opposite. Thank heavens that Tony Blair and the good Labour Party chose to ignore that suggestion.

Why would the government stop the opposition from debating something which is important, but not catalytic, not so important that it would jeopardize governance, that the government would either fall or be exposed? But it's force of habit with them. I feel as if I'm being bullied. They take you in the backyard, in the schoolyard, roll up their sleeves, show their tattoos and whack you. I mean, 29 times they invoked closure. You can't even speak in this House. I should come here with handcuffs and ask the blacksmith if I can say something or not, or gagged. This is an affront to democracy, nothing short of that. There are no ifs or buts.

Why? They'll say you'll have plenty of opportunity to debate. Maybe we will, because if it's like the municipal property taxes bill, it comes back a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh time, because it's so poorly drafted and it's quite a mess out there, so you have six or seven times to debate it. Maybe this bill will be flawed as well and therefore they will have to have another bill to rescind this one and we'll have a chance to debate again and then they will move closure again. It's a rigmarole.

I don't know about the people in the Premier's office. What do those people do? I guess they do the best they can in pushing legislation forward. They don't have much time. They're under a great deal of pressure because you have the program of the revolution and that revolution must complete its agenda before the end of this term. Time is really of the essence.

We sit here until 9:30 almost every night. We don't mind. That's our job and we're happy to do it. On the other hand they say: "We will tell you what you should talk about. We'll place the agenda. If it's the least bit controversial, if you take too much time in informing Ontarians about your point of view, that, yes, there is an alternative, then you've gone too far." Even in this case when we commend the government - last week we were on our feet saying, "Job well done, no ifs, no buts. Well, it's flawed, there are things that need answering," and they still hit you over the head.

What are we to do? We seek your guidance, your leadership, Madam Speaker. I can see the expression of pain as you have to help us and save the dignity of the tenure of Parliament. I know when you leave the office today you will be burdened by what has taken place and you will bring it with you. There is no escaping that. I've been observing you very closely and you're to be commended on the excellent guidance and leadership you have provided this House in spite of the majority muscle of this government.

I've been here for 14 years - it's not a long time - and soon to depart. I've worked with Conservatives, with a good deal of pride, I've worked with Liberals and with my distinguished and honourable colleagues of the New Democratic Party. But sometimes it is difficult. When you work with the Reform element, if there's any such thing as a fourth column, it's like another party. Those people are intransigent. With those people you say so little. They know it all.

You can talk about Greek mythology or nuclear physics, do it in five languages while listening to eight different instruments of music, and the Reform are right on top of it. They profess a zeal that is seldom evident elsewhere. Thank heaven, so far we have been able to close the Ontario border - how long will it last? - but some of them made it through. They came by the thousands and a few of them made it through and they're sitting among the Progressive Conservative Party.

You will recall they had a great deal of difficulty. They were in disfavour. Then the wind changed. They had ads in the paper, "If you wish to be a Conservative candidate, jobs at Queen's Park, answer this ad," and some of the Reform members said, "I'm going to answer this ad." I said, "How did you get to Queen's Park?" He said, "I took the bus from southwestern Ontario and then I took public transit." I said, "No, what about the philosophy?" He said, "I answered the ad." I said, "What about the nomination?" He said: "Well, how many people answered the ad in your riding? I'm the only one who answered," and heavens, he started to coattail the Premier and his success story. But they owe him. They're indebted big time.

Now, by a twist of fate, one kept promise, going from 130 seats to 103. Well, mathematically, Speaker - you've guessed it - some of them are in jeopardy now. In some cases you have two Reform and one seat, like Etobicoke. They get it. If I'm going too fast, I'll start again: Two Reform members for one seat, so now they don't know. We're watching for appointments. I'm not talking about Ontario Hydro, because some of them are physicists. They have some nuclear expertise and it is reflected in the compensation package.

1750

You know what the Conservatives are allowing those people to do? Those people will never have to seek legal aid, I can assure you. I speak directly to the bill. A million dollars. You get a signing bonus of $200,000 after taxes. Where do you sign? One should be so fortunate. In my second life I'm coming back as a physicist. I'm never leaving school. I will study until I get a tenure like that.

They sanctioned that. They gave it their blessing. They said, "It's OK, winner takes all - casino." They worked for three years - get this one, Speaker. This is a gem. You've developed a lifestyle at $1 million per annum so you don't wish to have to resort to a menial job afterwards. Well, you won't have to because you will get, after three years, $14,000 per month for life in pension.

Where will it stop? It is written. It's in the contract. I have a copy of the contract.

Mr Silipo: Say it's not true.

Mr Pouliot: It is true.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I heard Dalton McGuinty on the radio this morning and he believes in tax cuts. Did I tell you that?

The Acting Speaker: Minister of Rural Affairs, come to order.

Mr Pouliot: You'll say, will they throw in the car and driver? They have to. One gets $300 a week expenses, like pip money, bagatelle money.

Mr Gerretsen: Ready cash.

Mr Pouliot: Yes, you have to have lunch with friends and it doesn't come free.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr Pouliot: But if you're seeking legal aid, if you know where you stand on legal aid, with respect, you have to grab a number and wait in line. If you were to be informed by the members of the Legislature as to what the bill entails - what does it mean, what are they talking about - the opposition would wish to tell you, and the government too perhaps, but no, they have decreed that you should shut up on this bill because you've spent too much time.

I can't believe it. I mean, what standards are we setting? I see the pages who are here, and we want to wish them well in the future, and I advise them: "Be careful. Never become members of any brigade, club or organization. Beware if you see someone with a blue tie." I would go that far, my God -

Mr Silipo: You've got a blue tie.

Mr Pouliot: - unless the person has only one tie.

It is unfortunate - and some people are good colleagues, in fact good colleagues all - that the members opposite adhere to this kind of mantra where they believed so much when they met the Premier - in fact, when you meet that special person in your life, nothing else matters. Is there anyone there who has the political courage to say, "I will not take one more closure motion"?

This is a democracy that we live in. People have a right to express themselves. Who are you to come here next week with the next motion and when we debate the motion the spray will come out? Or will it be another method? Will we have access to our office? Will we still be able to walk the corridors? You know, it's getting to the point where -

Ms Martel: Clubs. Use some clubs.

Mr Pouliot: Club them, whack them good. The opposition will not be silenced. We represent what democracy is all about. We will be supporting the bill, but any tactics to deter the opposition from expressing their democratic rights will be opposed, opposed and opposed.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: It's over, member for St Catharines.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines, you didn't jump up right away. I was wrong. It's not over, so you have a few minutes left.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): He already spoke.

Mr Bradley: I just want -

The Acting Speaker: OK, it;s been made clear. Please take your seat.

Mr Bradley: I just wanted, on a point of order -

The Acting Speaker: Everybody sit down for a moment. Okay, let's start all over here. Point of order, member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: If I had the chance to speak under the rules, I would speak again. But under the rules I can't speak, so the member from Walkerville wants to.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's with some regret that I join in a debate yet again on closure. Closure motions really are inherently bad for our parliamentary system and prevent members of all political parties - government members, opposition members, third party members - from fully participating in the debates of the day. They're designed to limit those discussions.

The real limitations on debate in this House came about under the New Democratic Party. Members of the House will remember the rule changes the NDP brought in. Do you remember that? Those rule changes were designed to stifle debate. I'm glad the third party is able to join with us now and criticize this government, because this government has gone even further than the NDP government did in terms of stifling debate.

Mr Bradley: Far further.

Mr Duncan: Far further than the NDP did, although the NDP took us down that route, the NDP brought in the changes that originally tried to stifle debate. We have to keep these issues in due perspective and so we welcome the participation of the third party in these discussions. The member for Lake Nipigon is particularly eloquent about the need for free debate in this House and we have felt this way. We felt this way when they brought about changes to restrict debate. We say to the government -

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Did we have debate on the social contract?

Mr Duncan: Things like the social contract had debate limited, that's right. Limitations were put on that.

What we say to the government of the day is, don't be afraid to discuss the important issues.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would the members come to order, please. Can you wrap up, please, it's six o'clock.

Mr Duncan: I'm pleased to wrap up. I regret that this government has chosen to follow the path of the NDP in stifling debate. You ought not to stifle debate. You ought to allow duly elected members the right to debate these issues at length if necessary. For decades, this Parliament continued on and was able to pass legislation. Don't do what the NDP did.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Cunningham has moved government notice of motion number 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1759 to 1804.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Shea, Derwyn

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Pouliot, Gilles

Ramsay, David

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51; the nays are 22.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It being after six of the clock, the House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock this evening.

The House adjourned at 1807.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

26 octobre 1998