Journal des débats 1998-oct-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I move that, in the opinion of this House, since persons with disabilities in Ontario face systemic barriers in access to employment, services, goods, facilities and accommodation; and since all Ontarians will benefit from the removal of these barriers, thereby enabling these persons to enjoy equal opportunity and full participation in the life of the province; and since Premier Harris promised in writing during the last election in the letter from Michael D. Harris to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee dated May 24, 1995 to:

(a) enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within its current term of office; and

(b) work together with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, in the development of such legislation;

And since this House unanimously passed a resolution on May 16, 1996, calling on the Ontario government to keep this promise, therefore the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should embody the following principles:

1. The purpose of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should be to effectively ensure to persons with disabilities in Ontario the equal opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in all aspects of life in Ontario based on their individual merit, by removing existing barriers confronting them and by preventing the creation of new barriers. It should seek to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities within as short a time as is reasonably possible, with implementation to begin immediately upon proclamation.

2. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act's requirements should supersede all other legislation, regulations or policies which either conflict with it, or which provide lesser protections and entitlements to persons with disabilities.

3. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require government entities, public premises, companies and organizations to be made fully accessible to all persons with disabilities through the removal of existing barriers and the prevention of the creation of new barriers, within strict time frames to be prescribed in the legislation or regulations.

4. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require the providers of goods, services and facilities to the public to ensure that their goods, services and facilities are fully usable by persons with disabilities, and that they are designed to reasonably accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. Included among services, goods and facilities, among other things, are all aspects of education including primary, secondary and post-secondary education, as well as providers of transportation and communication facilities (to the extent that Ontario can regulate these) and public sector providers of information to the public, eg, governments. Providers of these goods, services and facilities should be required to devise and implement detailed plans to remove existing barriers within legislated timetables.

5. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require public and private sector employers to take proactive steps to achieve barrier-free workplaces within prescribed time limits. Among other things, employers should be required to identify existing barriers which impede persons with disabilities, and then to devise and implement plans for the removal of these barriers, and for the prevention of new barriers in the workplace.

6. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a prompt and effective process for enforcement. It should not simply incorporate the existing procedures for filing discrimination complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as these are too slow and cumbersome, and yield inadequate remedies.

7. As part of its enforcement process, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a process of regulation-making to define with clarity the steps required for compliance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It should be open for such regulations to be made on an industry-by-industry basis, or sector-by-sector basis. This should include a requirement that input be obtained from affected groups such as persons with disabilities before such regulations are enacted. It should also provide persons with disabilities with the opportunity to apply to have regulations made in specific sectors of the economy.

8. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should also mandate the government of Ontario to provide education and other information resources to companies, individuals and groups who seek to comply with the requirements of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

9. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should also require the government of Ontario to take affirmative steps to promote the development and distribution in Ontario of new adaptive technologies and services for persons with disabilities.

10. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require the provincial and municipal governments to make it a strict condition of funding any program, or of purchasing any services, goods or facilities, that they be designed to be fully accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Any grant or contract which does not so provide is void and unenforceable by the grant recipient or contractor with the government in question.

11. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act must be more than mere window dressing. It should contribute meaningfully to the improvement of the position of persons with disabilities in Ontario. It must have real force and effect.

1010

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Duncan has moved private member's ballot item number 29. According to section 95, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Duncan: I'm pleased to stand today on this resolution, which shouldn't be new to any member of the House. This resolution was designed in consultation with members of this House, members from all three parties.

The process for this resolution began some 10 years ago when the United States adopted its Americans with Disabilities Act. Throughout subsequent governments, all of us have participated in the discussion of these and other issues that confront persons in our community with disabilities. All three political parties in the last general election - all three of our parties - and each of us individually as members of those parties gave a commitment to persons with disabilities in this province that we will enact a meaningful and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act in the life of this Legislature.

As I was contemplating what to say today, it struck me that we are in the fall. We are in the dying days of this year, as we are in the dying days of this Legislature. Depending on when the call is, depending on what other business the government has and the opposition has, we have relatively few days as members of this Legislature to deal with this type of legislation. This type of legislation gives us the opportunity as able-bodied individuals to help bring those in our community who feel alienated from it into the mainstream.

This resolution and the commitments that were made by all of our political parties in the last election - the government party and the two opposition parties - involved five principles. I'd like to take a moment to review those principles.

The first principle is the principle of involvement in open, accessible discussions about the contents of this bill, an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. That is, we should be talking about the issues. There are issues within this. There are issues around implementation. There are issues around who should be covered. There are all kinds of issues around that. But the process must be open and, most important of all, it must involve persons with disabilities. None of us, if we haven't experienced a disability of one form or another, can effectively address their concerns.

As I travelled the province in the last week and met with groups literally across the province, I want to tell you what Graham in Windsor said to me. He said, "Don't forget persons who don't have visible disabilities." I got that message in North Bay; I got it in Peel region; I got it everywhere I went. I say to Graham and members of the Legislature that we must not only confront visible disabilities; we must confront those disabilities which aren't visible.

The second principle is the principle of removal. Too often I think those of us who aren't faced with the day-to-day challenges that our brothers and sisters are faced with take for granted or think or believe that we've done everything we can to remove existing barriers. The simple fact of the matter is, we have not.

This Legislature itself can only accommodate two wheelchairs at any given time. It doesn't adequately allow people who are deaf to hear what goes on. I believe all members in this House support the removal of barriers, and I believe the people of this province want barriers removed. But we mustn't be complacent and think that we've done everything. We mustn't believe that because we have handicapped parking spots, the barriers have all been removed. They haven't been.

The third principle is the prevention of new barriers. Technology presents barriers; technology prevents barriers. If you don't have access to technology, how do you compete in this economy? And if you're disabled and you don't have the income, how do you access a computer, especially a modified computer?

The fourth principle is the principle of proactive intervention. That is, we as a government, as a Legislature, have a duty and a responsibility to proactively intervene. It shouldn't be a question of volunteerism. We must commit ourselves in a proactive fashion to bring the resources of government to bear on removing barriers and on preventing new barriers.

The fifth principle is the principle of enforcement. All of us know, as members of provincial Parliament, and many have sat on municipal councils before, that the best-intentioned law in the world doesn't work if you can't enforce it. Whatever law we pass must have a mechanism that works for enforcement. The Human Rights Commission, where oftentimes we try to resolve these, simply does not work in an adequate or fast amount of time.

Ces principes sont très importants, pas seulement ici dans la législature, mais dans toute la province. Pour tous nos citoyens, il faut que nous adoptions ces principes maintenant et dans la nouvelle législation, dans la nouvelle loi du gouvernement. Moi, je soutiens un ODA qui sera fort et où nous pourrons enforcer toutes les provisions de cette loi maintenant et dans l'avenir.

Throughout the last period of time, I have had the opportunity to travel the province and meet with the most able people I know. Today in Windsor, at ALPHA, Dean Labutte and his group are watching us in the Legislature. The people in North Bay who are out in front of the Premier's office as I speak asking for the government to keep its commitment are among the most able people I know. The people in Peel region who are watching today are among the most able people I know and are among the people who most want to be brought into this process. The people who have been to your offices this morning, the people from the Rumball centre, are among the most able people I know.

I believe all of us in this House, all private members, want this kind of legislation. We don't want to be 10 years behind the Americans. We want Ontario to be the most accessible and accommodating and open province in this country and indeed, hopefully, in North America.

I say to my colleagues in the House, we have a rare opportunity to adopt what I would call a piece of legacy legislation, a legacy that for this House will be as meaningful as Algonquin Park was to Oliver Mowat's government, or the education reforms that Davis implemented in the 1960s were to his government, or the French Language Services Act was to the Legislatures of the 1980s.

We have an opportunity, my colleagues, all of us, in a non-partisan fashion, in a trilateral fashion, if you will, to leave a legacy we can all point back to regardless of our political stripe and say, "We did that." This has been asked for for years. We are 10 years behind the Americans. We have a chance now to keep all our commitments because all of us made that commitment, whether it be through our political party or through groups in our communities in the last general election.

I ask members in all three parties to support this resolution embodying these 11 principles and I ask the government: Bring that legislation forward so we can pass it and leave a legacy for our children and our grandchildren.

1020

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I rise and speak in support of this resolution because I know that for many in our communities, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act has been too long in coming.

It was Mike Harris during the 1995 election who promised to bring in this legislation and, as a result of the lack of action, it was my NDP colleague Marion Boyd who introduced a resolution into this Legislature in May 1996. That was supported unanimously and yet we are still waiting for the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

There are many groups in my community that are anxiously awaiting this legislation, groups like Legal Assistance of Windsor, the AIDS Committee of Windsor, the local Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Hearing Society, WECAN and the Windsor/Essex Chapter of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, who I know have done a great deal of work in preparing briefs and lobbying government members.

Individuals who live at Alpha House, a residence in my riding, are also asking themselves why it has taken so long for this government to introduce legislation. They're asking themselves why the promise is not being kept, why a government that says "A promise made, a promise kept," is failing to keep its promise with respect to persons with disabilities. There's a good reason, and that is that the overwhelming promise that this government is fulfilling is the one that provides a tax benefit to those who are the most well off. If it means cuts to education or cuts to health care to do that, then that's OK.

Those cuts are affecting many people in my area, people like Debbie Desjardins, who wanted me to raise the case of her daughter in the context of this resolution that says persons with disabilities should have "equal opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in all aspects of life in Ontario." She has a daughter, Brandie, who requires support services so that Debbie is able to fulfill her obligations as an employee at Casino Windsor. Debbie has been looking after Brandie for 21 years and has saved the government millions of dollars. Brandie is now an adult. She now feels that she should be able to have the opportunity to live like other able-bodied individuals, but at the moment Debbie only gets temporary short-term help.

Community agencies are stretched to their maximum in assisting individuals and their families, and the rights of the disabled to "equal opportunity and to fully and meaningfully participate in all aspects of life in Ontario" is a message that she wanted me to convey on behalf of herself and her daughter.

Mary LeFleur and her daughter, Jodi, who has been diagnosed with severe and profound developmental delay and autism disorder wanted me to mention that her daughter, Jodi, being 21 years old, graduated from the developmentally challenged program at Southwood School in Windsor and attended Autism Services Inc. That was a program that was run during the summertime. This program has the ability to provide for a number of adults with autism, but the funding is going to end on October 31.

This is a government that often likes to say that it wants not to give a handout to people but to give them a hand up. This is an opportunity for government members to do the right thing, to support a resolution that is going to move us into having protection for people with disabilities in Ontario, and I urge all members to support the resolution.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I an pleased and honoured to rise today to speak to the resolution put forward by the honourable member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Members will recall that during the 1995 election, the Premier wrote, "A Harris government would be willing to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in the first term of office within the economic goal posts of the Common Sense Revolution."

Members will also remember that in May 1996 the House unanimously passed a resolution by the member from London to enact an ODA and work with the ODA committee, a group of disability stakeholders, in the development of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

I'm pleased and honoured to say to all those who are here today and everyone watching at home that this government's principles and parameters for an ODA are still very clear. They are written in black and white in our discussion paper that was released in July. We are committed to bring forward an ODA and we will keep our promise.

I was pleased during our summer consultation to hear from hundreds of Ontarians and organizations on how to improve accessibility in this province.

I think it somewhat ironic, of course, that the tone of the debate from those on the other side of this chamber is just slightly harsh. The two opposition parties have been silent on an ODA for some time.

The New Democratic Party, for example, failed to support a private member's bill that was brought forward by one of their own members in 1994. During our ODA meetings we listened to what Mr Malkowski had to say about the need for programs and the need for legislation. We thank him for his candidness about how difficult it was to get his colleagues in government from 1990 to 1995 to listen.

It is ironic that the Liberal disability critic did not participate in the ODA consultations. His office, I know, was contacted back in July and informed how he might get involved. I know the minister and I have looked high and low for Liberal submissions on behalf of the opposition. We can't find them; there are none available. His office was informed about the meetings in Ottawa but he was not involved. Nothing has been heard from him or from the leader of the Liberal opposition on this issue.

At this point I suppose we can say that they are johnny-come-latelies. They were late in endorsing debt reduction, late in supporting tax reduction and they are late in showing interest or support for an ODA. But we welcome their support for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The minister should be bringing forward legislation shortly because a promise made is a promise kept and I'm pleased that my NDP colleague reminded us of that. A promise made is a promise kept.

Let me turn my attention to the resolution that is before us now in more precise terms. The resolution sets out a number of directives that may or may not be good ideas, but the principle of an effective ODA is something all members of this chamber should stand in support of. We support the principle of equal opportunity for everybody. The Premier made a commitment and that commitment is being fulfilled. Any legislation from our government is based on some fundamental principles and consultation.

We spent the summer consulting across the province on the ODA. The minister met with many stakeholders in Toronto, and I met personally with large numbers of varied stakeholders across this entire province. We held consultations in eight communities, met with representatives of 283 groups and organizations and received over 260 submissions from individuals, community leaders and organizations, representatives of Ontarians with disabilities, business, municipalities, service providers and labour.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Did you open the meetings up?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's a good point, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, come to order.

1030

Mr Shea: During the consultations we asked for input on three key questions. First, what are the priorities for preventing and removing barriers for persons with disabilities? Second, what could be included in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act? Third, what additional approaches could complement an Ontarians with Disabilities Act? We are currently reviewing the many ideas which were put forward in meetings and in the submissions. Once our review has been completed, the minister will be moving to bring legislation before the House.

Legislation isn't the only thing government can or should do, however. I know that our government has given a lot of emphasis to programs. For example, $1 billion a year for special education through the Ministry of Education's funding to school boards for programs for exceptional children, such as children with disabilities and gifted children, and up to $25 million over the next five years for neurotrauma research, prevention and rehabilitation projects.

Mr Lessard: Are you going to vote in favour of the resolution? Are you voting for this?

The Deputy Speaker: Member from Windsor, come to order.

Mr Shea: In May 1998, the Premier announced the approval of $3.7 million as the first round of projects as part of Ontario's $25 million commitment to the Rick Hansen Neurotrauma Initiative.

In short, this Liberal resolution contains many things. Some are helpful, others are perhaps more problematic, but the thing that is most important about it is equal opportunity, and that is something we can all support.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Before I start my presentation, I must say I'm surprised that Mr Shea, a man I respect, a man I consider of a high calibre, would do a political speech while we have thousands of people look at us at this moment, thousands of people looking at us for an answer to their demand, a cry for help. Let me assure you, had you done your research, you would have found out that we called the minister's office on many occasions to find out where meetings were to be held and never did we ever receive an answer.

I commend the member from Windsor-Walkerville for presenting a challenge to the government in the form of this resolution. It is inspired by the hundreds of people with disabilities who have come together around the province to ask for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It is simple justice the community is calling for, justice that has been too long denied.

Only recently has this government acknowledged that they have this promise to keep before the next election. For that reason, I am sure that we will see a bill reasonably soon. What I doubt, however, is that the government will produce a piece of legislation that will be truly meaningful. It will be another item they can check off the list to say a promise has been kept, but it is terribly cynical to approach the issue in this way. The only way we can judge the effectiveness of this legislation is whether it will have a measurable impact on the lives of people with disabilities.

It is true that the task is daunting. What an effective ODA would help accomplish is to shift our way of thinking. We would recognize our differences as human beings and acknowledge the fact that our environment is organized in a way that favours some people more than others. All persons have a right to a life of dignity. We must realize that our society does not provide a level playing field for everyone. Many of us have been born to a life of privilege and, sadly, don't even know it. As a result, we don't see the broad range of physical, social and economic barriers that people with disabilities encounter every day, and it keeps getting harder for them.

In its consultation document the government listed the programs and services it provides to persons with disabilities. It is trying to say: "Look. See how much we do for you." What they fail to say is that behind the elaborate program names, program funding is shrinking. That is the reality. More families are having to compete for fewer resources. Hours of support are being cut. More stringent rules are applied in a whole range of programs. The full impact has yet to be felt, but the prospects are not good. It all adds up to the kinds of cuts to persons with disabilities that the Premier promised would not happen. This is the context into which this government would place its Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

That is the reason for this resolution. What persons with disabilities are asking for is a real advance into the world that we all take for granted. We're asking the government to live up to its obligations and give us legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of people with disabilities.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm pleased to speak to this resolution and indicate my full support for it. I'm quite disturbed by what I've heard in this House today. As I understand it, the government members will rise and vote in favour of this because they don't want to be seen to be on the wrong side of this very important issue. But if you listen to the words of the parliamentary assistant, you heard very clearly his support for a couple of helpful things in the resolution and some things that are not very helpful. He said their clear commitment still exists, what they wrote in black and white in that discussion paper.

Nothing could disturb one and a half million Ontarians with disabilities more than hearing that. You've just dashed their hopes entirely that you were going to have a strong, effective law. That discussion paper was full of all the weasel words like "voluntary measures." Let me tell you what happens in Mike Harris's Ontario with voluntary measures.

The speech I intended to give today has just been thrown right out the window because my colleague from Sault Ste Marie, Tony Martin, has shared with me a letter that he just received from Vince Buczel in Sault Ste Marie:

"On October 18, 1998 I had the opportunity to visit Pancake Bay Provincial Park to enjoy the fall colours, a pleasure I've enjoyed for over 25 years.

"Upon turning into the main park entrance from Highway 17, I was confronted by a newly installed gate. Another car had also pulled in just ahead of me.

"I parked my car and got out to continue into the park on foot. As I walked past the other car I noticed that the occupants were greatly distressed. I asked the male occupant what was wrong. His response was that he had enjoyed coming to the park in the off-season since it opened to enjoy the beauty and now he couldn't get in because of the newly installed gate. You see, this man used a wheelchair and now could not access the park. Pancake Bay Park has a wonderful paved loop that winds its way through towering pines and along some of the most beautiful waterfront scenery in the world. In addition the park has installed a wonderful paved ramp up to the beach area, provided handicap parking in the picnic area and has wheelchair-accessible toilets. Not much good if you can't get into the park.

"On Monday October 19 I called Mr Chris Caldwell, Pancake Park's manager, and relayed to him my experience of the previous day as well as my concerns. He stated that the new gate was installed and closed at the end of the camping season to counter vandalism and illegal garbage dumping by area residents. He also stated that handicap accessibility issues were not taken into consideration at the time he took the decision. I asked him to reconsider his decision in light of the accessibility issues and said I'd touch base with him again. Ontario Parks policy has, as part of its definition, the following: `Outside the operating season, the park is designated as closed, vehicular access to campgrounds is prohibited through the gating of access roads and vehicle access may or may not be permitted for day use.' Pancake Park did have gates restricting access to the campgrounds already! Access to the entire park is now restricted with the new gate, not just the campground.

"I again contacted Mr Caldwell on October 27 and asked him, now that he'd had a chance to reflect on the decision, if the gate was going to stay. He stated" - every one of you in the government benches, listen to this - "that handicapped individuals have ample opportunity to access and enjoy the park when it is open and the gate will stay where it is. It is at this point that I felt compelled to write this letter. For many years Pancake Bay Park has been a welcoming and valued complement to our unique northern lifestyle. I have often seen wheelchair-bound individuals enjoying a stroll during the peaceful off-season. This decision to relocate the gate is regressive, punishes the innocent and will do little to combat vandalism. The Ontario Parks even sell winter and summer passes that encourage you to `enjoy unlimited daily vehicle entry to all provincial parks.' By whom?"

"I encourage everyone to call the park manager at (705) 882-2209 or e-mail Ontario Parks at comments@OntarioParks.com and oppose this exclusionary decision. Our provincial parks are for use by everyone 12 months of the year."

1040

That is what happens to the voluntary approach in Mike Harris's Ontario. Mike Harris has removed and cut the staff in ministry after ministry who were responsible for removing barriers in the Ontario public service. He has removed the fund that was put in place under the previous government to systematically remove barriers and to implement changes that were necessary to ensure that workplaces were accessible.

How do you expect voluntary measures to work outside of the government if under a Premier who says he's committed, with a parliamentary assistant who has travelled the province and says their commitment is clear, you can still have gates erected in provincial parks that stop accessibility?

This act is for everyone. This act ensures that all of us who are disabled, who may become disabled or who have disabled members in our family can enjoy access to all parts of our society together. It is simply a necessary piece of legislation. Any dickering around, saying, "We'll make it voluntary. We'll make it an approach where we attempt to encourage people to participate," anything like that will simply be a betrayal of the one and a half million Ontarians with disabilities and all of us who support them and who call on the government to keep their true promise and enact a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I support the resolution proposed by my friend opposite regarding an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Let me say, however, that there should be no confusion in anyone's mind about this government's position on supporting persons with disabilities. Our government believes, and has always believed, that persons with disabilities should have an equal opportunity with every other Ontarian to participate in the social and economic life of this province. Furthermore, this government has always said that it intends to promote that participation by both legislative and non-legislative means.

I have personally urged it to advance on this agenda, and it has done so. In fact, this government has already gone further than any other government in the history of this province to make equal access a reality. As the member opposite says himself, during the last election campaign the Progressive Conservative Party said that it would enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in its first term of office, within the economic goalposts of the Common Sense Revolution. This is a government that keeps its promises and we will keep this one too.

Do we support the objectives at the heart of the member's resolution? Of course we do, and he knows we do. It will be this government - I repeat, this government - that is going to move our province closer to becoming barrier-free for persons with disabilities. Let's be blunt here. If either of the two previous provincial governments had been even half as serious as this government is about achieving equal opportunity for people with disabilities, we wouldn't have to be here this morning responding to the member's resolution. Members on that side of the House had an opportunity to do what we will be doing but they did not do it. Let's not forget that.

As the member knows, Isabel Bassett, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, her parliamentary assistant, Derwyn Shea, and ministry officials met recently with literally hundreds of individuals and groups to discuss issues affecting persons with disabilities, and I personally commend the Bloorview MacMillan Centre for its assistance in this process. This government distributed more than 7,300 copies of a discussion paper that became the focus for an unprecedented consultation process on preventing and removing barriers for Ontarians with disabilities.

The government had consultations in eight cities across the province. It consulted with 283 organizations in Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Peterborough, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Toronto and Windsor. More than 100 of these groups represented the disability sector. The government received approximately 260 submissions on improving access for persons with disabilities, about 60% of which came from disability groups.

The discussion paper set out a number of parameters for consulting on barrier removal, and I think it's important that we reiterate those parameters now, because they were, and are still, clear statements about this government's direction in this regard.

We said that time frames for implementing barrier-removal approaches should be realistic. We said that approaches must support the government's overall goals. We suggested that a range of approaches should be considered. We were clear that barrier-removal approaches should use existing legislation and enforcement mechanisms to their fullest extent. We stressed that barrier-removal ideas in the area of employment should be consistent with the government's voluntary approach to promoting equality in the workplace.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Voluntary.

Mr Parker: I understand that the members opposite have difficulty with that concept; that's something they have to deal with.

We stated that the roles and responsibilities of different levels of government should be kept clearly in view.

In other words, we have been clear from the beginning about our direction and about the fact that both legislative approaches, such as the Ontario disability support program, already introduced, and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, soon to come, as well as complementary approaches to achieving equal opportunity for persons with disabilities must fit within the government's overall vision for Ontario and the promises it has made to Ontarians.

Each organization the government consulted with had its own opinion on the issue, its own experiences to relate and its own recommendations to make. I also know from my colleague the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation that the consultation process has provided the government with a considerable amount of information on disability issues from representatives of business, disability groups, labour, health service providers, municipalities and the education sector.

Naturally, given the diversity of opinion and divergence of views that such a group would bring forward, the government has to take a measured, considered approach to addressing barrier removal and prevention. There is no point in repeating the mistakes of previous governments and developing a hodgepodge of legislation and programs that fail to meet the needs of the very people they purport to assist.

What we need is a thoughtful plan for barrier removal, a plan that will continue to advance this province firmly towards its goal of removing and preventing barriers. This government wants a balanced and workable approach to supporting people with disabilities and preventing and removing barriers to their participation in our society. This government fully intends to lead by example, to demonstrate what achievements are possible when there is a commitment to succeed.

But make no mistake. The government intends to meet the commitment it has made. It will do so in a carefully planned manner that achieves the objective of enabling disabled Ontarians to contribute their potential to the social and economic life of this province.

Mr Agostino: I'm pleased to join in support of the resolution by my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville. It's certainly interesting to listen to the members of the government party talk about this commitment they have. What you had was a three-and-a-half-year delay. What you had were public hearings that were an absolute sham. What you had were public hearings that were closed. What you had were hearings with selected individuals whom you chose to come forward and you shut out the rest of the community. You won't even release the papers that were submitted at those public hearings. You're afraid to do that.

Very clearly, what we're going to get is more feel-good, pat-on-the-head weasel words and weasel legislation. We talk about voluntary. Our history should tell us that voluntary compliance when it comes to dealing with people with disabilities in Ontario does not work. We have passed hundreds of bills in this Legislature since this government has taken office. They have not seen fit yet to bring this bill forward, three and a half years later. When the bill does come forward, it is going to be an absolute joke, because it will be based on the goodwill of people who may want to comply with this legislation but don't have to.

1050

My father spent 24 years in a wheelchair. I know at first hand the impact of voluntary legislation. What that means is that my dad could not get into a building unless my brother and I were there to pick up the wheelchair and carry it up the steps. What it meant was that for him to access a disabled bathroom - it didn't exist. We had to take him behind the building. It meant that there were many buildings he couldn't get into, many workplaces he couldn't get into. That was the reality of voluntary legislation. It doesn't work, it is unenforceable, it is a sham, and all you're trying to do here is give some vague commitment that somehow is going to tell you that you've kept your promise. You haven't kept your promise. You have betrayed a million and a half disabled Ontarians with this feel-good, pat-on-the-head approach that you have taken here. You're not going to fool those folks. They know that this type of legislation is not going to work. It's not far-reaching enough. It is not going to have the teeth it needs for it to work.

You had a golden opportunity here to act. You had a golden opportunity to set up a place in history for yourselves, to do something real that helps Ontarians. What we've heard clearly this morning is that you're going to let this thing slide. You are going to give up that opportunity to make some real changes to help disabled Ontarians. I say shame on you.

You've cut funding to vocational rehabilitation services. You've cut funding to disabled programs. You've added user fees. That is your legacy. This bill is not going to be your legacy. Frankly, the introduction of this bill is going to be a joke. Unless this government moves to ensure that it is not going to be voluntary but mandatory, and it's going to force every single aspect of our society to comply, it is going to be a dismal failure and the disabled community will not forget the betrayal you've imposed upon them.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'll be brief but I want to say a couple of things. First of all, the resolution we're dealing with today follows on the resolution from May 6, 1996, when Marion Boyd, my colleague from London Centre, called on this government to enact the Ontarians with Disabilities Act in this term. That was agreed to by all members of this House. Here we are, two years later, doing the same thing yet again.

Frankly, this government's handling of the development of this act has been abysmal. There is no other way to describe it. For the first three years of this government you did nothing with respect to the development of this act. What you did, though, was to reverse a number of policies and cut a bunch of funding from a number of programs that were put in place to help the disabled, some over many numbers of years.

In the middle of the summer, the government finally decided that it was going to do something with respect to its commitment around this act. The government developed a consultation paper, which it dropped on the disabled community and a number of organizations in the middle of the summer.

Two things have to be said about the discussion paper and the consultations. First, if this discussion paper is a forerunner to a bill that is supposed to protect and enhance the condition of the disabled in the province, forget it. Don't even bother bringing anything else forward. The measures that were outlined in the government document have no teeth, are voluntary, are worthless, aren't worth the paper they're written on.

The fact that you want to use the Ontario Human Rights Commission to deal with discrimination is ridiculous. People know that doesn't work. Using the Human Rights Commission doesn't deal with the systemic problems, the systemic discrimination and the systemic barriers the disabled face in this province. We have two people who went to the public hearings who said the following:

"People's complaints would be still handled by the Human Rights Commission. What's the point in bringing in a disability act? It's the situation we have now." That was Kim Scott, who is with the Canadian Hearing Society, Sudbury chapter.

Joanne Nother said: "There's no teeth to it, no form of enforcement. There is nothing that will force employers to make the workplace accessible or force them to comply." Joanne is the chair of the NorthEastern Ontario Regional Alliance for the Disabled.

Second, with respect to the consultation process itself, it was a sham: seven communities only, in the middle of the summer, a 90-minute meeting behind closed doors by invitation only. It was an affront, a slap in the face of the disabled community, who want and need to participate in the development of this act. People in Sudbury said very clearly that this is ridiculous.

Mr Andre Crepeau, who is with the Canadian Hearing Society, said, "We're the experts. We're the ones who are living with these barriers." He expressed his disappointment about the closed meeting.

This government promised legislation this term. This government must recognized that the disabled have an enormous contribution to make to the Ontario economy. It's time this government went on and got this bill done.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I did have some prepared remarks, which I'll ignore because my colleagues who waxed eloquent in their remarks robbed me of the time to present them. What I will say, however, is that I tend to agree that this is not the time for political speeches and it's not the time to defend a process, because it is time for us to become very serious about the needs of the disabled in our communities.

When we talk about the issue of mandatory versus voluntary, I'm going to suggest to you that we have ample example, as someone has already said in this House, that when certain issues are made voluntary, there perhaps is a reluctance on the part of those responsible for implementation to follow. We recently had that example with municipalities. I'm one who would support that some requirements be made mandatory to ensure that the services for the disabled in our communities are adequately met.

As I indicated to people outside this place earlier today, I have been and will continue to be an advocate for the needs of the disabled in our communities. I have been an advocate of bringing forward an Ontarians with Disabilities Act by our government, and I'll continue to do that. When it comes forward, I also agree that it should be meaningful, and if it is not brought forward as a meaningful document for first reading, I will be the first one on this side of the House to work with other members of this Legislature to ensure that it is in fact a meaningful document, a meaningful piece of legislation.

All of us have a vested interest in ensuring that the work that goes on in this place is not simply for political purposes or for making the necessary noises to the people in our community. We all have a responsibility to ensure that when we spend time in debate, when we spend time in committee, the final product is something that will work for the people it's intended to help, that is practical in implementation and that will, at the end of the day, achieve its objectives for Ontarians and ensure that the quality of life for people with disabilities in this province is improved.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): In the two minutes I have, let me lend my support to this resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville. Today we have the opportunity to honour a promise that the government put forward and to honour a promise not only by the government but by all of the Legislature. Disabled people are appealing to the highest level they can go, the Legislature. The Legislature itself is the body that can make meaningful and effective legislation for all the people who are disabled.

Let me also say what it's all about, which I'm just going to emphasize, and I think we do know. All they're talking about is access: access to employment, a meaningful way of life; access to public services, which are given to all of us and paid for with taxpayers' money; access to buying a product to carry on their life; access to transportation. These things are basic. I really am confused when we have this sort of debate as we talk about a political issue. I think today we have the opportunity, all of us, to pass the motion and move it along so we can have that law in effect, and I support it very much.

I just want to take a second to say that it was an excellent speech given by my colleague the member for Carleton East, and also the presentation prepared by my colleague here. We are in strong support, and I hope we all have that support in making this resolution pass today without the dance and fanciness that goes on here each day.

1100

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, I want to tell you that every New Democrat in this Legislature stands firmly behind this resolution, not just vaguely, in principle, but with respect to every facet of this resolution, which calls for real and meaningful enforcement of what are basic human rights in this province.

I'm concerned about the vagueness of the Tory support. I'm concerned about the fact that they support this in principle today, yet within months of forming government they repealed equity legislation, modest legislation that gave some access to persons with disabilities to our workplaces. You see, it's not just about eliminating barriers to buildings; it's about ensuring that every Ontarian, and today we're speaking about persons with disabilities, has access to the economic activity of this province as well; that persons with disabilities have a right to real jobs with decent wages; that persons with disabilities have a right to housing that is appropriate for them and that is decent and affordable housing.

We need firm laws to establish firmly in this province that every Ontarian is going to be included in the day-to-day activities of Ontario life. This government has not made that commitment. I call upon Tory backbenchers to forget the whipping today and vote with their consciences.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in very strong support of my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville's resolution today, and also to speak on behalf of the disability community in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, which has worked so hard to have this legislation brought forward.

The truth is, I think my colleague will probably be the first to say that he wishes he wasn't bringing forward this resolution. We all wish this government was bringing forward legislation that indeed would be meaningful and indeed would have some true effect and make a real change in terms of the disability community. The fact is, it has become increasingly clear, especially in terms of the speeches that were made today, particularly by the member for High Park-Swansea, that this government will bring forward legislation but will be dealing very much on the basis of voluntary compliance.

We know that the efforts to secure voluntary compliance over the past 20 years have not been effective. It is our responsibility, and our obligation as legislators, to make sure that legislation comes forward and that the promise that was made by Mike Harris is kept not in some shallow, hollow fashion, but kept in a meaningful way. Because the truth is that Ontarians with disabilities still face massive unemployment rates and systemic exclusion from education, mainstream public transit, employment, job creation, housing, and many other areas.

If I may just say so, the consultation process that has been discussed by the government members was truly one that was completely insulting from the very beginning. The fact is that in April the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee presented a blueprint and wanted to present it to all three parties in a rather non-partisan fashion. I was very proud, as the member for Port Arthur and on behalf of the member for Fort William, Lyn McLeod, who couldn't be there, to accept that blueprint on behalf of the group. Persons United for Self-Help, PUSH Northwest, presented that to me.

What was shocking about that at the time was that not one government member would accept that particular blueprint. That was certainly a bad sign. This was already after an extraordinary delay in the process where the minister and the former minister would not even meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. This blueprint is one that is very clear in terms of what the needs are.

The consultation this summer was truly a farce. The fact is that PUSH Northwest went to the session chaired by the member for High Park-Swansea and were told that they would have an opportunity to speak but that they couldn't stay. They sat in that room and told the member that they were not going to leave, that they were going to stay there and sit in because it was their right to do so. We were proud that they did so. They were able to listen to the presentations, all of which supported the fact that there needed to be mandatory and clear, meaningful legislation, not the legislation that unfortunately we're now expecting to see.

I'm glad to have had an opportunity to state my case in strong support of my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Bradley: I'd like to thank my colleague Dwight Duncan from Windsor-Walkerville for bringing forward this resolution this morning. I suspect the resolution will receive unanimous approval of this House. The real proof of whether it's going to be implemented, of course, will be in the actual legislation that is forthcoming.

I'm a bit concerned by the defensiveness I've heard and some rather partisan remarks that have come out this morning from some of the Conservative members. It appears that they are uneasy with many of the provisions that might be contained in this kind of legislation, and of course the proof will be in the actual detail of the legislation that we see. I was concerned about the controlled, restricted and limited consultation that took place behind closed doors. It would have been advantageous to have open consultation, widespread consultation across the province, to come forward with an act which is truly going to be meaningful.

When I hear the words "workable," "voluntary" and "practical" used, it seems to me they're code words. They're code words which, to those who are opposed to this kind of legislation, will give them some ease. If you look at the Ministry of the Environment, for instance, when you say, "Will you please, on a voluntary basis, clean up the environment" or "Be good environmental citizens," some might well do that but many will not. It requires enforcement, it requires strong provisions within the legislation and the regulatory framework.

What individuals with disabilities in Ontario are looking for is not some privilege but the right to enjoy the same kind of life that others in our society enjoy in terms of access to housing and transportation, and particularly access to good jobs that might be available within our society and certainly within our province, and access to education and physical access to buildings and to our society as a whole. We have made some progress in the last number of years. Much more progress has to be made.

As they see the television ads that come on, costing the Ontario taxpayer millions of dollars - self-serving, blatantly political advertising, whether it's on health care or education or municipalities, whatever it happens to be - they must be thinking, "Wouldn't it be nice if that kind of money could be invested in services that would assist people with disabilities to be part of the mainstream of Ontario," as all want to be part of the mainstream of Ontario. Yet they see that money being wasted, squandered, thrown away on self-serving advertising. I think that money could be converted to much better use.

I hope all members of this House support this motion. More importantly, I hope the bill that emerges is truly meaningful and beneficial.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Windsor-Walkerville, you have two minutes.

Mr Duncan: I want to begin by thanking my colleague from St Catharines, Jim Bradley. To those in the community watching and listening today, Mr Bradley gave up his private member's time to allow us to bring forward this resolution, and he deserves tremendous credit for the support he has given to the disabled community throughout Ontario.

I listened carefully to the parliamentary assistant to the minister, and I believe he said they are asking the government members to support the resolution and I welcome that.

I welcome that because I thought his other comments weren't accurate in many respects. There was no meaningful consultation this summer. People were barred from participating. That's why we brought this resolution forward, so we could have an open discussion about these issues. We haven't had that, we haven't. Members were excluded. My colleague from Carleton, M. Morin - we made a conscious decision not to participate. We met with groups throughout the province to hear their point of view. Any notion that that was a meaningful consultation should go right out the window.

I say to my colleagues opposite and my colleagues on the opposition benches, we have a real opportunity to leave a meaningful legacy of recognizing the inherent rights of every member of this community to be full partners in this community. We have the opportunity to pass legislation that will be meaningful and enforceable, that goes beyond voluntarism and says to the disabled community, "You are full partners, you belong here." I say to my friends on all sides that the most able people I have met in my life I have met from the disabled community as I talked about this resolution throughout Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

1110

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

Mr Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les médecins.

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

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Bill 2 is the successor bill to Bill 126, a virtually identical bill that I introduced and that had unanimous consent at second reading on May 8, 1997. I'd like to say that I have made one change to the bill. I have inserted one word. I want to read the crux of the bill, which is very short, very succinct but very important. It says:

"A member shall not be found guilty of professional misconduct or of incompetence under section 51 or 52 of the Health Professions Procedural Code solely on the basis that the member practises a therapy that is non-traditional or that departs from the prevailing medical practice unless there is evidence that proves that the therapy poses a greater risk to a patient's health than the traditional or prevailing practice."

The one word that has been added is the word "solely." The question is why? Why add the word "solely"? I would like to quote from the World Health Organization's 1989 Helsinki agreement, which was signed on behalf of Canada, and by definition on behalf of all the provinces and territories, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time.

The provision in that agreement says, "A registered practitioner shall not be found guilty of unbecoming conduct, to be found to be incapable or unfit to practise medicine or osteopathy solely on the basis that the registered practitioner employs a therapy that is experimental, non-traditional or departs from prevailing medical practice, unless it can be demonstrated that the therapy has a safety risk unreasonably greater than the prevailing treatment."

That is almost identical to the wording of this new bill.

I would like to quote from a letter from Dr Linda Rapson, who is the chair of the complementary medicine section of the Ontario Medical Association. She says:

"Dear Mr Kwinter:

"As chair of the complementary medicine section of the Ontario Medical Association, I wish to thank you for bringing Bill 2, An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991, before the Legislature. This bill is an improvement over its predecessor, Bill 126, which we supported last year. By adding the key word `solely' to the bill, we believe you have gone a long way to answer the sincere concerns of some individuals and organizations with respect to the potential for this bill to weaken the traditional public protection we have come to expect from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario."

That is very significant, because I can tell you that virtually the only resistance I got to this bill was from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It's interesting to note that the last time this bill came forward, they wrote a strident, strong letter to the Minister of Health saying that they could not support this bill. I think it's somewhat significant to note that this time there has been no comment whatsoever by the college.

What has happened since Bill 126 was passed? Interestingly enough, the bill was passed on May 8, 1997. On May 10, an advertisement appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail announcing that an ad hoc committee on complementary and alternative medicine was to be set up and would meet, and the public was invited to make representations.

The hearings were held in June, and I just want to tell you what happened when they set up the committee. The ad hoc committee on complementary medicine, which studied the issue of regulating physicians who provide non-traditional diagnostic methods and remedies, met for two days of public hearings. The College of Physicians and Surgeons committee report concluded that patients have every right to seek whatever kind of therapy they want. In addition, the committee stated that regardless of the kinds of therapies or practices they choose, physicians are accountable not only to their patients but also to the college, and ultimately to the public at large. I have no question or problem at all with that.

What has also happened is that the Ontario Medical Association set up a probationary section on complementary medicine. At their last meeting, held on September 16 or 17, 1998, the board of directors passed a resolution that recommends that full status should be given to a complementary medicine section of the OMA. So after the probationary period they have realized that this is viable, that a lot of doctors want to affiliate, and as a result we have the Ontario Medical Association now giving full and permanent status to that section, which is a very significant advance for doctors who are practising complementary and alternative medicine.

Interestingly enough, on October 20, just a week ago, the United States Congress passed legislation that's going to change the face of health care in that country forever. What they've done is pass legislation that allows for the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health to be changed from being an office to a center, which means it gets $50 million worth of funding. In addition, the legislation provides $1 million to support the establishment and operation of a White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine to study and make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate policies regarding research, training, insurance coverage, licensing and other pressing issues; again, a very significant step forward.

In our own country - this is interesting. On September 16 an article in the Toronto Star said, "Mount Sinai Gets Clinic for Acupuncture."

"A new acupuncture program has been launched at Mount Sinai Hospital in conjunction with the Michener Institute and is heralded as the first of its kind in Canada.

"The program, part of the hospital's pain clinic, will be an important bridge between traditional Chinese and Western medicine, said Michener Institute president Renate Krakauer.

"`We're delighted,' she said.

"On hand at the press conference, yesterday, was Mount Sinai Hospital president Ted Freedman and Isabel Bassett, Ontario's minister for citizenship, recreation and culture."

An article appeared in the Toronto Star on September 17 about a conference held in Toronto. It says, "Traditional Healing Can Treat Menopause." A researcher from Columbia University's medical school in New York stated that this is a process that has been tried for centuries and is something that mainstream doctors are now getting hold of. An interesting comment she makes is, "In Europe, St John's wort, a botanical used to treat mild to moderate depression, another common complaint of pre-menopausal women, `is outselling Prozac by leaps and bounds.'"

Another interesting article says, "Alternative Medicine Gains Acceptance."

"Almost two thirds of traditional US medical schools now teach alternative therapies, including chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal remedies and mind-body medicine, a survey found.

"With millions of Americans visiting alternative practitioners yearly, educators have no choice but to respond to this relentless challenge to evolve.

"The survey of 125 medical schools found that of the 117 reporting, 75 of them now include in their curricula alternative medicine."

I have very little time left but I do want to quote from a letter that the Minister of Health sent to a constituent. This letter is quite significant in that what it does is it gives, for the first time that I have seen, an acknowledgement by this government that they are supporting this initiative. In her letter she says:

"I want to assure you that this government supports freedom of choice for patients for a range of care options as long as people are not put at unnecessary risk. This includes physicians who use non-traditional treatments as long as they maintain the standards of the profession and have the skills, the education and training necessary to provide such treatments."

I couldn't have said it better. This is exactly what this bill proposes. This is an issue that I think will dramatically change the face of medicine in this province, as it has in many other jurisdictions, and it is something that will give freedom of choice for patients and freedom of choice for doctors.

1120

The Acting Speaker: Before we continue, I'd like to recognize in the gallery the former member for York East, Mr Malkowski.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Speaker: You're quite right, Gary Malkowski is in the members' gallery. Gary Malkowski is also deaf. Gary Malkowski, as a member of the public and as a former member of this Legislature, has every right to attend in this chamber. I submit to you that he has every right as well to understand what's being debated in this chamber. I point out to you, Speaker, on a point of order, that the absence of any signing interpreters available for Mr Malkowski, the absence of any visible written interpretation of what's being said in this House that's visible within the Legislature, both illustrate how inaccessible -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. As you know so well, that has nothing to do with procedure, but I think it is a good suggestion. Perhaps you could bring it to the attention of the Speaker or do it officially and send it to the Legislative Assembly committee.

We will now proceed with the debate.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to take this opportunity, first of all, to tell the member who brings forward this resolution that we will be supporting, as we did the last time, this particular bill because we think it is a step in the right direction, given where health care is going generally in Ontario.

I also want to take this opportunity as a member from northern Ontario to speak about what it means for us in the northern part of the province where often health care services are much more difficult to attain because of the geography in the place we live, and also the overall system of health care and the way it's been developed over the past number of years.

If a person is unfortunate enough to be ill in Toronto or Ottawa or Windsor - it is never good to be ill but if you're going to be ill I guess this is the place to do it - there are various places to access the health care system in places like Toronto and other major cities: health clinics, various specialists, hospitals, you name it. There is a multitude of points of access to our health care system. But that is not the case in northern Ontario.

If you're fortunate enough to live in some of our communities such as Timmins, Sudbury, Thunder Bay or Sault Ste Marie, you have generally fairly good services, but if you live in communities like Hearst, Kapuskasing, Cochrane, smaller communities such as Ear Falls and others, services in health care are very difficult to come by at best.

One of the things this bill will do, hopefully in the longer run if the government would wish to adopt it, is to give people various options when it comes to how they're treated within our health care system. It is not appropriate all the time for people to just solely utilize a doctor when it comes to a particular ailment that they may have when they're not feeling well.

Our government, under Bob Rae, started the process of using nurse practitioners. We know that in places, especially remote communities where there is difficulty attracting a full team of doctors to man an emergency room and give full 24-hour coverage seven days a week, properly trained nurses with the proper supports put in place can go an extreme long way to offset the need of the community when it comes to access to health care. That's the way I view this bill, because we need to look past the regular styles of health care and those practitioners within it who we see now and we need to take a look at broadening our understanding of how you're able to access care when it comes to your particular disease.

We look back in the past. I know within the medical community certain doctors look at this as being unfriendly legislation. But I also remind physicians that when we look into the past, many of the things that we now take for granted within our health care system were seen as buffooneries of health care 100 and 200 years ago. What happens within health care and other things is it becomes organized to a certain extent, and those people who tend to control the majority of what happens in our health care system are the doctors.

We need to take a look at, yes, doctors are important. They play an integral part in our health care system. But we need to look beyond to how we involve other people in the system of health care to ensure that we are using our health care system in the most efficient manner when it comes to the delivery of the health care itself, in other words, services, and also when it comes to the dollars we spend.

I want to speak from where I come from. I look at communities like Hearst or Attawapiskat or Peawanuck or Ogoki, communities where health care services are a little bit more difficult to come by. If you're a patient living, let's say, in a place like Peawanuk and you're unfortunate enough to get a heart attack - first of all, does anybody know where Peawanuk is? Probably most people in this Legislature don't. It's in Ontario. It's all the way up on the Hudson Bay coast, and most members of this assembly probably have never been there, but if you live in Peawanuk and you happen to get ill, it's not a question of jumping in a taxi and going three blocks down the road to Toronto Western or whatever hospital may still be open by next year here in Toronto. It's a question of going to a first-aid station and hopefully having a nurse there to be able to stabilize your condition, and if you need more profound treatment, of having a helicopter flying up from Moosonee, a Twin Huey, for what would be about a four-hour ride just to get up into Peawanuk and a return four-hour helicopter ride coming back and stopping for fuel in Attawapiskat.

The point I make is it's not very easy to access services in many of those communities, so we need to take a look at, how do we deliver services in communities such as Peawanuk? I think one of the answers, not the answer but one of the answers, is to say yes, we need to take a look at how we use other health care professionals within the health care system, not only how we use the nurse practitioners but how we might be able to use other people who have more traditional lines of being able to deliver health care services.

I look at the native community on the James Bay coast. There is a long tradition and a long understanding within the native community as to what are appropriate responses to ailments for the people of the first nations of this province and of this country, and they have traditional healing people. In fact, in the city of Timmins, we have the Timmins native health centre, which provides to the native community and non-native people who are interested more traditional means of delivering health services. I think this bill to a certain extent would be able to address some of that so that people, where appropriate, can rely on some of those more traditional healing methods and, where appropriate, use more traditional ones, as the case may be. I think the bill definitely goes in that direction.

You can't get into a health care debate in this province without talking about the Harris government and the record they have. I remember well Mike Harris in opposition, and when Mike Harris went through the whole process of putting together the Common Sense Revolution in the run up to the election of 1995, Harris stood in this House and promised us and the people of Ontario that if ever he was the Premier, not one cent would taken out of the health care system, that he would guarantee health care services to people, because that was the holy of holies.

I remember during the campaign of 1995, as it relates to this bill, Mr Harris promised that he was going to do a whole bunch of neat things and positive things when it came to health care service. Did Mr Harris, on being elected to government, first of all adopt the previous bill that the member introduced, Bill 126, which was very similar to this one? No. What did Mr Harris choose to do? Mr Harris chose to gut the health care system as we know it. The government is in the process now of cutting over 30 hospitals, shutting down over 30 hospitals in Ontario. By shutting down those hospitals, he is going to make it more difficult -

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I have to interrupt you. This bill is quite clear. It's Bill 2, An Act to amend the Medicine Act, and that's the topic you have to debate on.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, we're talking about amending the Medicine Act, and with all due respect, one of the things he is trying to do through this bill is give people the opportunity to seek other forms of -

The Acting Speaker: I think I've been very clear. I don't want an argument. I've been extremely clear. It's Bill 2.

Mr Bisson: I would love to say something that comes to my mind, but I won't repeat it. I will get back to the debate at hand.

The Acting Speaker: This is a total lack of respect vis-à-vis the Chair. When you address the Chair you address yourself. That means you have no respect for yourself, and I won't tolerate that. I will give you another chance.

Mr Bisson: Back to the topic. We're discussing health care and we're discussing the Medicine Act. Basically the member is trying to bring a bill in that makes it possible for people to access various alternative forms of health services, and if that's not related to the overall health care system, I quite frankly wonder, because that's the point that the member tries to make through his bill.

The member says we can't look at just traditional methods when it comes to being able to access health care services, we need to take a look at alternative forms of delivery, and that is something that's not separate from our health care system. To somehow come here before us and say these two things aren't related, I don't agree. They are very much related.

The point has always been that health care services have been dominated by the medical professions, and the medical professions have dominated what happens within the health care system. What the member is trying to do is open up the scope of practice to a certain extent to allow other people, the public, the option when they're feeling ill to seek out alternative forms of health care delivery.

1130

I make this point: One of the reasons this bill becomes more important is that this government since 1995 has gutted and cut at the health care system in this province to an extent that we have never seen before. They're in the process of closing over 30 hospitals, which probably will make it, if this bill passes, a little bit better for people to access various styles of health care, but nonetheless this government is basically taking apart a system of health care.

The point I am trying to make is very simply this: I don't believe for one second that even if the government votes for this bill, they're going to do anything to allow this bill to get the light of day past the committee process, if it's lucky enough to get there. Why is that? It's because the Harris government has an agenda when it comes to health care, they want to move towards the privatization of our health care system over the longer term and they want to move to a two-tiered system and very much more a system as we see it in the United States. I as a New Democrat, founding party of our health care system in this country, started by Tommy Douglas and others of the CCF in Saskatchewan, will not sit idly by and watch this government rip apart what is the best health care system in the world.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 2, brought forward on behalf of the member for Wilson Heights. I know it's an issue he cares very passionately about as back on May 8, 1997, he debated Bill 126, which was a similar bill with the exception that Bill 2 has the word "solely" included in it whereas it wasn't in Bill 126.

As the member for Scarborough Centre, I will support this bill in principle, as I did on May 8, 1997, with Bill 126. At this time I want to remind all members of the House that the province of Alberta has enacted similar legislation, as have the states of Alaska, Colorado, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington.

As I can see from the crowds here in the gallery today, the member for Wilson Heights seems to have a knack of drawing large crowds of people around him these days on various issues.

Support on this side of the House will be in principle for the bill, based on the fact that currently legislation and regulations already allow alternative practitioners to practise within Ontario, and they can practise without the fear or perceived fear of reprisal.

I believe that physicians and other health care professionals who use both traditional and alternative or non-traditional treatments should be able to practise as long as they maintain the standards of practice of the profession, work within the scope of practice, have the skills, education and training for their practice and do not cause serious physical harm or put their patients at or in unnecessary risk.

It's interesting to note in today's Sun newspapers - and I hope in a few weeks or a few months from now we will still be able to call them Sun newspapers - that the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame last night welcomed 11 medical pioneers in a ceremony in Ottawa. It's important to note that today's non-traditional or alternative practitioners could very well be tomorrow's pioneers. History has a way of doing this. Honourees last night included stroke expert Dr Miller Fisher, psychiatric pioneer Dr Heinz Lehman, as well as the late Dr Norman Bethune, who was inducted into the hall.

This bill, Bill 2, would enshrined in legislation professional misconduct guidelines that historically have been dealt with through regulation. I have received letters of support for Mr Kwinter's bill from the Ontario Society of Physicians for Complementary Medicine. They represent licensed physicians, family doctors, specialists in diverse fields such as anesthesiology, oncology and occupational health. Some of the treatments integrated into their practices today include acupuncture, homeopathy and orthopaedic medicine.

I have received letters from the complementary medicine section of the Ontario Medical Association. They represent specialists from such diverse fields as internal medicine, occupational health and oncology and many in between. I also received a letter from the Acupuncture Foundation of Canada Institute.

Now let me turn my focus to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. It is the college that has the mandate to regulate the practice of the medical profession and to govern the members in the public's interest. It's the college that decides what, if any, changes they want in their own bylaws. It is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that, if they still have concerns, is much happier today with Bill 2 with the inclusion of the word "solely." Yet the bill still places the burden on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to prove negligence, and there is a lack of research available today to evaluate the safety and efficacy of many of the alternative therapies.

To my friend from Wilson Heights across the way and to all members here today, I say that I will support this bill in principle, just as I did Bill 126. Let us accept this bill in principle on all sides of the House. Let us bring Bill 2 forward to committee for public hearings to ensure that the rights of patients are front and centre in Ontario.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It's a pleasure to be able to speak in favour of this bill, as it was for Bill 126, and also to acknowledge why we are here today. This is not just about alternative medicine, the subject, itself; it's about the role of the Legislature. We have a member in Monte Kwinter who is doing, I think, the kind of job that we are put here to do, which is to bring issues which would not otherwise get a voice into the public domain.

Monte Kwinter brought Bill 126 forward, and it by itself has had some of the desired impacts. We need this subject to be debated. We need this to be part of how we examine the public interest in terms of people's ability to maintain their own health. Nothing more personal, nothing more important happens in society, yet up to now this had been left in the shadows, in the backrooms of medical decision-making, and it doesn't belong there. It's extremely important that it happen here today and that we look at this as simply an enabling that this Legislature can do to put this issue where it belongs: in the hands of people who are capable, with the appropriate measures being taken by this Legislature to ensure that people are protected.

All of that is in the wording of this current bill. In fact, with the changes in the bill, I think this bill is complete in the sense that it meets all the concerns that have been raised by people who are potentially worried about the effect of that discussion. I'm not worried about that discussion; I'm not worried about creating a better, clearer form of access for people to the complementary practices that we have. It's a service that this Legislature needs to do and it's well overdue.

For people in the public who often shake their heads and wonder whether the Legislature is a place for politicians to do them that service, to be able to stay in touch with their concerns, this bill today is a test of that, because complementary medicine, when you look at what we are talking about, the specific practices in terms of acupuncture, in terms of holistic therapy - some of those have been around longer than the traditional medicine that some other people have felt is under attack. If we look closely at this bill, it only takes us to a certain point that says, "The people we have who are certified in our traditional therapies can, using that knowledge and the other knowledge they have acquired, practise other therapies that are safe for their patients." It is only a small device; it's just a strategically important one to be able to make sure we don't subject the biases we have been brought up with in terms of access to traditional medicine.

I want to mention that Monte Kwinter came to this bill as somebody without biases in one direction or another, and he is to be complimented all the more for examining the case for this kind of practice on its merits. Again, I think it distinguishes us as legislators to know that we are supporting that specific kind of effort.

The beneficiaries here are many. The public certainly stands to benefit. We have to, in this time of an aging society, examine the various options which are open to us. We have to embrace them, we have to bring them into the public light, we have to evaluate them for the public safety, but we have to make sure that people can make those choices. This is not just about consumer choice; it's about something more fundamental. Our whole public system hinges on those things we can do together, and keeping people healthy is certainly one of those things.

It also has a political benefit. It brings merit on to everyone in this House to see this pass, and I think pass all the way through. But specifically for a government in the throes of many credibility problems around health care, this is a significant opportunity for the members of that government to show that when it comes down to it and they are given an opportunity like this, a non-partisan chance to advance the interests of the citizens of this province in such an important fashion, they will take advantage of it.

1140

Mr Kormos: I want to commend Mr Kwinter for, among other things, his perseverance in reintroducing this bill as Bill 2 on this occasion, and to indicate that I will be supporting this bill without hesitation.

First of all, it has already been suggested this is, at the end of the day, a relatively modest proposal. It doesn't in any way lower the level or reduce standards for practising physicians. In fact, it reinforces and repeats, rearticulates, that there's a high standard that physicians have to function by. It permits them to diversify the types of treatments that they may engage in with particular patients.

Within the lifetime even of the youngest member of this Legislature we've seen dramatic changes in the types of treatments that are considered appropriate or acceptable. We still suffer from an incredible ethnocentrism, if that's not an inappropriate word, in terms of our fear or mistrust of medical treatments that somehow aren't North American.

I can speak very much from my own experience. I've been getting acupuncture treatments from Dr Michael Venneri in St Catharines. He's a chiropractor, not a physician; a very competent young chiropractor. Dr Venneri, over on Welland Avenue in St Catharines, has a very broad-based approach to treatment.

I've been taking acupuncture in an effort to quit smoking, to overcome that addiction. I'm not a poster boy for overcoming smoking addiction. I suppose in some respects I speak as well as anybody because I've done it many times. I want to tell you that my experience - and this is my first experience with acupuncture, with Dr Venneri in St Catharines - has been an extremely positive one and, quite frankly, I am optimistic.

I don't know how it works. I'm not going to pretend to know how it works. I don't want to know how it works. All I want to know is that at the end of the day I'm no longer smoking and no longer a victim of those predators in the corporate world that would sell one of the most addictive substances - it is, Speaker - that we know in our community. They realize people my age are less inclined to smoke; now they're peddling it to kids.

When we talk about the Medicine Act and practising physicians and surgeons, it's hard not to consider just where it is that physicians are going to be practising when places like Hotel Dieu in St Catharines are shut down, boarded up, sold off. That's what happened earlier this week. The health restructuring committee of this province said Hotel Dieu is gone, the only Catholic hospital in the Niagara region. That's where physicians practise and that's where they're going to be entitled to practice these alternative medicines if Bill 2 becomes law, as I hope it does. That's where they're going to be engaging in these practices - oh, in some respects in their own offices, but they're going to need these hospitals and the hospitals have to be capable of accommodating this broad range of treatments and treatment approaches.

So this government shuts down Hotel Dieu. There may well be Tory members in Niagara who all of a sudden now want to join some sort of rallying cry to keep it open, but where were they when thousands of people were gathering across Niagara protesting the attack on hospitals in Niagara region?

You're quite right, Speaker, I'm digressing. I'm not speaking directly to the bill before the Legislature. I've already told you I'm going to support it and I've already commended the member for introducing it, not once but twice, and I've already expressed my concern about this government's attack on hospitals and its shutdown, its closure, its boarding up, its selling off of Hotel Dieu, one of the most important - well, no less and no more so, but an important and integral part of the hospital and health care system in Niagara. Shame on them.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise today in support of this bill. I supported it the last time it came before the House and I will do so again today.

I also want to say to the member that he was obviously well organized in presenting the issues around this bill because I have many petitions that have come to my office in support. In fact, it was the petition that focused me on the rest of my remarks that I'll make that I trust will be considered as helpful, because in this petition one section of it reads as follows:

"Ontario health consumers deserve reliable access to competent doctors who offer safe, beneficial and low-cost alternatives to conventional medicine."

That brings me to the point I would like to make. I do believe that consumers in our province should have choice, that alternative medicine is clearly an option that people should have in our province. What I'm concerned about, however, is that this bill makes absolutely no reference to the issue of ensuring that those doctors who would be practising the alternative medicine would in fact have the appropriate training and the necessary background to administer that alternative medicine.

We know that traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture is an entirely different system of medical science. The complete training in the profession, for example, of TCM and acupuncture, requires four to eight years of full-time study. What I'm concerned about here is that we would have western doctors simply move into this area of practising alternative medicine without the appropriate training. Bill 2 makes absolutely no mention of any training requirements. I believe it would be absolutely essential that that component of training be addressed, and I look forward to participating in that discussion through the committee process to ensure we've addressed that.

For the record, the member made reference that there was perhaps only one letter of objection to the previous bill proposed. I certainly received, and perhaps the member did not receive, a letter that was sent out that actually listed some 18 organizations that objected to the previous bill and would object really to this bill as well on the principle that I've just mentioned. For example, the Canadian School of Eastern Medicine, the Chamber of Chinese Herbal Medicine of Canada, the Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture Academy of Toronto, the Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture Association of Canada, and it goes on to list a number of organizations that object to the bill in its present form. I undertake to work with the member and with other members of the Legislature to ensure that the concerns of these organizations are addressed.

I commend the member for bringing it forward. It will bring choice into the system that now is restrictive in that regard and I look forward to working with you.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): It's a pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I want to compliment my colleague the member for Wilson Heights for having stuck with this issue and maintained his conviction to bring back this bill, one that I believe represents progress, a step towards recognizing complementary medical treatment in Ontario, something that really is long overdue.

It seems to me, and I think we would all agree, that any body of knowledge, by the strictest definition of the term, must be added to, redefined, refined over a period of time. So it is with the large body of knowledge that we refer to as modern western medicine. It's not static and it's not all-knowing. Like anything else it must evolve and that's one reason why we're here today.

This legislation is a means by which we can address an issue that consistently faces our doctors or practitioners in relation to their patients. How does the system help patients to proactively take responsibility for their own health? One answer of course is by giving doctors and practitioners a wider range of options with which they can encourage self-treatment.

When we look at health and the human body, the human body, as we know, has the unique capacity, far greater than many people think, to heal itself, and encouraging that process is a key to quality of life. Conventional medicine too often is about after-the-fact treatment. Complementary medicine often seeks to promote well-being before the fact.

Lately we've had a lot of talk about bricks and mortar and hospitals, and doctors and nurses, but this bill helps to add what I believe is something extremely important, and that is the concept of self-responsibility and the concept of being able to participate more fully in the process of treatment and self-treatment. It seems to me that doctors should have the right to practise medicinal methods that are beyond - I know my doctor advises me on vitamins and herbal substances that he believes are of import, and more and more doctors are doing so, even though perhaps they don't have the legislation to back it up and that's why this is important.

When we look at the cost benefits, the practice of complementary medicine dovetails really neatly with the long-stated goal of both the federal and provincial health care systems: the benefits of exercising complete and preventive health care. I had the opportunity to look at a couple of hospitals in the Ottawa area recently. All their objectives were treatment oriented. There was not one word in those objectives about prevention, about helping people to be more aware of the ways they could contribute to their health.

1150

Because of the time factor I have to speak very quickly. We all know that at least half of all Canadians will use some form of complementary medicine this year, many of them with tangible good results. Similar to my colleagues who are speaking here today from the Toronto perspective, I want to tell you that in my riding of Ottawa Centre, I have many people from many lands and many parts of the world and they bring with them many perspectives and histories of medicinal healing and health. Those should be explored and recognized and added to our body of knowledge.

As legislators, one of our key responsibilities is to try to keep society's laws up to date. This legislation provides us with that opportunity. We should seize the opportunity that this private member's bill gives us and recognize what more and more Canadians already know.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Je suis très heureux de participer à la discussion concernant le projet de loi 2.

Speaker, it's very important to compliment the member for Wilson Heights on his initiative in this bill. Seldom have we seen some really good ideas coming out of the official opposition. From that perspective alone it's good to see an original, or nearly original, idea in the area of health care.

Regarding my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie and his concerns about training and research, I think that if this bill gets to committee, it can widen the discussion regarding the major benefits and beneficiaries of this type of legislation. Specifically, I have many constituents who have approached me before you brought in your idea regarding this bill, that we ought to be elevating and legitimizing the status of alternative or complementary health care practices. Whether it be acupuncture, aboriginal medicine treatments and practices or Chinese approaches to medicine, we can learn a lot from those parts of the world. To some degree, the Western approach to medicine has assumed a superiority that it does not really have.

If the bill ever sees the light of day, I think it will advance and create a wider discussion about the benefits of health care. For the member of Wilson Heights, I was just thinking this morning about some of those things, like perhaps relieving, over the mid- to longer period of time the tremendous expenditure pressures on the Ontario drug benefit plan, because we would have a different avenue for treating some of these things.

I was thinking of many members of this House, and I include myself, and how acupuncture has helped a lot of people in the relief of anxiety, allergies or what have you. That's one significant benefit. Another benefit is that perhaps people will go back and look at how they can treat themselves rather than rush immediately to a doctor. What made me think of that, member for Wilson Heights, is that when I was a child, my mother used the old mustard plaster to eliminate colds and the flu. Why is that so soundly rejected today?

I see a wider benefit than simply allowing doctors to have a greater scope of practice. Those are two significant benefits that will come from your bill, as well as a possible new industry in terms of research on plants and animals that we are disregarding today.

I congratulate the member for Wilson Heights for introducing the bill widening the scope of practice. Let's hope we see this get to committee, because I believe it has many potential benefits and I congratulate the member for that.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to commend my colleague Monte Kwinter, the member for Wilson Heights, not only for his perseverance but for the insight and the way he has researched this and consulted many in the community. I keep reminding him also that I have the privilege within my constituency of Scarborough North to have many alternative and complementary medicines that I consult from time to time because of the large Chinese population in my riding. So I have that kind of privilege.

One of the things we always talk about in our society is that Canada is one of the best places to live in the world. I think that comes from the fact that the other phrase that comes with it is talking about celebrating our diversity. That diversity itself brings many things because our immigration policy attracts some of the finest minds around the world, and with the finest minds come some of the greatest traditions and practices that have been around for thousands of years. Some have come not only from China but from Europe and all over. That comes in a way that we can extract from those wise minds. Complementary and alternative medicine is one of those opportunities that we will tap in on and that's why I want to commend my colleague for this.

Of course, as I said, and the previous speaker mentioned it, I have seen alternative medicine a long time, from mothers or what have you. I think he made a very important point. It triggers off a discussion. It triggers us to start looking at even things within our own traditional society that we were discarding.

Sure, the physicians and surgeons and many of the associations want to see us do it in a proper way without any risk. The amendment to the legislation he has put forward is excellent because it gives a sort of comfort to those who are then moving into something that is new.

As we work along with this, I would like to see this move to second and third reading, but I also see the importance of our discussing this more, not because I would like to see it hurried through but because what debates have done and consultations really do for us is educate the population so they can be more informed so that legislators understand what they are doing.

For me to stand today and support this is supporting something that I have lived with for a long time and would have great comfort to know that the legislators of today have got this legislation, have exercised it, and now move forward so we can have proper legislation.

I'd like to give some of my time to my good colleague from Scarborough who also shares those sentiments.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am in support of Bill 2, An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991, put before this House by the member for Wilson Heights. I am pleased to relate some of my own personal experiences. I was here when we spoke on Bill 126 and I doubt if the member realizes the amount of good that previous bill has done people across this province.

I believe that the body's resistance to disease rests largely on individual choices on how we live and eat and how our lifestyle takes place.

My experience with Monte Kwinter's Bill 126 some time ago goes back to last December. Last December the doctor diagnosed me with diabetes. I had not realized how high my count was until a few episodes with the doctor. He instructed me that I would have to go on the needle. That did not sit very well with me. I thought there had to be an alternative so I said to my doctor, "If I have to go on the needle, I presume I'm going to have change my lifestyle," and he said yes. I said: "I'll tell you what. I'll change my lifestyle and then I will determine whether I need to go on the diabetic needle or not."

So what did I do? I got Monte Kwinter's book that he had given me with regard to the different medicines you could take. I read that book and I made a copy of the page that dealt with diabetes. I took that and my wife and I went away for two weeks and I stuck by what that said to a T. Within two weeks my count was down to normal and my lifestyle had changed. My lifestyle today is because of Monte Kwinter's Bill 126. I've lost weight and my count is normal. So I commend you for what you have done.

1200

That's what I say in my opening remarks. There are probably a lot of people who have no idea of the amount of good that bill has done. The discussion we're having here today is another example of your commitment to the Medicine Act. I think it's been great. I can tell you that there are probably many other people out there who are watching who, if they can do what I have done on our health care system, there will be major savings.

Today, speaking briefly on this bill, it's a challenge for us and a challenge for the doctors to be able to put in place and allow to happen what this bill wants. "The challenge doctors face today is to try to separate what is obsolete information they got in medical school from what is current and more helpful to the modern way of living." Today's society has a great interest in natural self-healing. To achieve a balance between chemical drugs and natural healing requires revision.

An ancient Arabian proverb says, "He who has health has hope; and he who has hope has everything." I believe this bill, if passed, would allow a lot of people to find hope through an alternative and complementary natural healing process, as it has with me.

I'm here today to compliment the member for what he has done with regard to Bill 126 and with regard to this bill, Bill 2, and I'm sure the people out there watching will all benefit. If they change their lifestyle, exercise and eat properly, it will all work out for the better.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too want to join in support of Mr Kwinter's bill. The previous member, Mr McLean, outlined the benefits he's found in complementary and alternative medicine. I would just say that I've literally talked to probably 100 different people who have a similar story to Mr McLean's, where they have taken the time to understand and learn about alternatives, have practised it and have benefited enormously.

I don't think there's any question that this bill has enormous merit. It will represent for many people a terrific opportunity to improve their health. And as someone said earlier, just in pure dollars and cents, it's important.

I also want to put it in a broader context, for me at least, and that is that we in Canada are developing a model for the world of how we can change our diverse society with a minimum of conflict. I'll just use the area I represent now. Fifteen years ago there was not a Sikh gurdwara or a Muslim mosque or a Hindu temple, but they're all there now. We have enormous religious diversity.

I'll be going to a graduation tomorrow night where there are flags in the auditorium of the school from 80 different countries. That represents a flag from the countries where the students in that school were born - 80 different countries. In that school they accommodate the diversity, and the staff and the students understand the strength of that diversity.

What we have to do as a society is continually look at the various practices and make certain that we are changing and adapting. Access to trades and professions is another area where I don't think we've done nearly enough.

Mr Kwinter's bill, in the area of health and medicine, takes us an important step forward, where we recognize that there are more forms of effective practice of good health than we currently recognize in our legislation. This moves that forward and is an important step forward. But, as I say, I put it into a broader context. I think the magic of Canada will be in our ability to continually challenge the status quo and say, "How do we need to change our laws and our practices so that we take advantage of the diversity?" This is one step but an important step forward.

I want to close by complimenting Mr Kwinter. He has spent an enormous amount of time on this. Mr McLean talked about the book he received. I think Mr Kwinter sent us all the same book. He has been tireless in this. I hope that very shortly the House will approve his bill and we'll see the fruits of his many years of labour in the field.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kwinter, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Kwinter: To all of my colleagues in the House, I want to thank you for your support. I have not heard a dissenting voice but I did hear some concern and I want to address that, and I had to address it the last time as well.

It has to be made absolutely clear that what we're talking about is providing medical doctors with the ability to take a look at these alternatives that are available to them without being censured or found incompetent by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. That is all it's about. It doesn't take away the responsibility of the college or the medical practitioners to do no harm, to be accountable to their profession, but without this provision, just as all of you, I'm sure, have had faxes and letters from people who are concerned about this issue - and just take a look at the public gallery. When do you see this many people for a private member's bill? Hardly ever.

The college has said, "We have no problem." There has not been a dissenting voice from them on this bill at this time. It is impossible for a private member's bill to answer all of the questions that are out there. It just can't work. When you see government bills, some of them take 50, 100 or 200 pages. This is a private member's bill that builds a platform to allow doctors to use their best professional judgment to provide the best care for their patients. It also enables the patient to get freedom of choice and the ability to have some control over what is happening to their bodies.

What we have to do is not only give this second reading today but, as our colleagues did in Alberta, give it third reading so we can get on with it, where we can save the province money and get the job done.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION LÉGISLATION SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES EN ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 29, standing in the name of Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan has moved private member's notice of motion number 23.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 30, standing in the name of Mr Kwinter.

Mr Kwinter has moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1209 to 1214.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION LÉGISLATION SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES EN ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jordan, W. Leo

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Leadston, Gary L.

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLean, Allan K.

Miclash, Frank

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ross, Lillian

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Tilson, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 56; the nays are 0.

The doors will now be open for 30 seconds until we proceed with the second vote.

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jordan, W. Leo

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Leadston, Gary L.

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLean, Allan K.

Miclash, Frank

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ross, Lillian

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Tilson, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May I ask for unanimous consent for third reading of the bill?

The Acting Speaker: You're asking consent to order the bill for third reading. Is it agreed? I heard a dissenting "no."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kwinter, we can order it to committee of the whole.

Mr Kwinter: The standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: The bill could be sent to the general government committee. Is there agreement to this? Agreed.

All matters related to private members' business having been debated, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1221 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Premier and is in regard to his decision to spend more than $42 million of taxpayers' hard-earned money to promote his government's extreme right-wing agenda, an agenda of cuts to health care and education, an agenda of closing hospitals and schools, an agenda of slash and burn.

Our health care system has been one of our proudest achievements, based upon the belief that every person living in the province has the right to receive the care they need regardless of personal circumstances or where they live.

Since 1995 we have watched Premier Harris and his revolutionaries promote an agenda that destroys, divides and demoralizes our citizens. In just a few short years they have forgotten the purpose of government.

No one is fooled by the Tories' attempt to position themselves as caring and compassionate as we approach the next election. Despite the millions they are spending on ads, Tories are committed to an agenda that is leading Ontario down the wrong path.

Forty-two million dollars would have gone a long way to solving the health care priorities of my constituents. Instead the Tories decided to use tax dollars to buy ads.

Forty-two million dollars would have gone a long way to ensure remote and northern communities had access to health care. Instead Premier Harris decided to buy ads.

Forty-two million dollars would have helped to hire and indeed rehire nurses. Instead Premier Harris bought ads.

Forty-two million dollars would have provided my constituents with the ongoing psychiatric services we need in our area. Instead Premier Harris and the Tories bought ads.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I think it would be instructive to outline how the new funding model under Bill 160 affects the viability of schools across Ontario and what challenges there are for school boards in making the tough decisions required. Ultimately the issue of school closings will be discussed well past the December 31 deadline.

Under the funding formula, staffing is based on an average student population of 450 to 500 for elementary schools and 900 to 1,000 for secondary schools. For areas with schools smaller than these averages, guidance counsellors, administrative staff, principals and vice-principals, librarians, special subject teachers - the staff required for each school - will be reduced.

For example, a small school with 150 students may qualify under the new funding formula for only one third of a principal to staff that school. Rural areas with small communities, and therefore small schools, are particularly hard hit by this formula. Maintenance costs under the new funding formula are based on the number of students in each school and not the actual size of the building.

When growth occurs under the funding formula, a grant for a new school will not be available unless the spaces within the school board are fully used. In essence, they must close small schools in order to get money for new schools. This is going to be a problem for neighbourhoods right across Ontario, both in urban and rural centres.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm recognizing the need for the Simcoe County District School Board to act now to build additional student accommodation space. This board realized 10 years ago that student accommodation in the south of the county would grow to the point that they would need a new secondary school in Innisfil. Explosive growth over the past five years has reached a crisis point. The Barrie secondary schools are at over-capacity by 1,600 students.

Ontario boards are in turmoil as they adjust to the new student accommodation funding formulas.

I have been contacted by many parents in Simcoe East expressing concern for Simcoe's struggle to adjust boundaries to accommodate all students. I feel boundary changes will cause disruption and upheaval for these families and students.

This government has given boards greater flexibility. Boards can now debenture costs, allowing needed construction to begin without delay. School boards have the flexibility to determine their own priorities. They have the flexibility to decide whether the student accommodation funding provided for every student should be used to build new schools or renovate schools to eliminate portables. This flexibility removes the barriers that delay construction.

I urge the Simcoe county board to proceed immediately with a new secondary school in Innisfil. This will provide some needed relief to current boundary attendance problems in the northern part of the county.

The Ministry of Education has given the boards in Ontario the opportunity to develop long-term capital plans.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): In Windsor today and this week you have the subjected the public and my constituents to horrible, propaganda-type ads at their expense. Make no mistake, I will make sure that the people in my riding understand that they, the taxpayers, have paid for the Tory propaganda that should have been paid for by the Conservative Party.

I am asking the Premier to do the honourable thing and reimburse the taxpayers of Ontario, the government, all of the $42 million that it is wasting when it should have been spent in places like Windsor.

This past summer alone, 230 times, ambulances were turned away. They could not dislodge their patients into the emergency rooms because our ERs had no room. That could have been avoided. But $42 million of their money was spent on your propaganda ads.

How many surgeries by Dr Akpata could have been done instead of cancelled? The day surgery couldn't guarantee that the patient would go home that night because there wasn't a bed in the hospital.

Instead you spent $42 million on propaganda ads. That is unconscionable and has never happened in the history of Ontario. No matter what you say, the public will know that you are wasting their taxpayers' dollars.

NORTHERN ONTARIO BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This Tuesday night in Sault Ste Marie, the community, under the able leadership of our mayor, Steve Butland, hosted the 12th annual Northern Ontario Business Awards.

This was a very exciting evening. Some 400 people gathered at the Ramada Inn - small business folks, big business folks, financial institutions, government representatives - all there for one purpose: to focus on and encourage and congratulate small business entrepreneurs in northern Ontario who have gone the distance in good times and in bad to be successful, to generate wealth, to make sure that there are jobs for those of us who call northern Ontario home, and to be honoured in a particular way on that evening.

Some of the people who were honoured - and they deserve certainly great praise - were Prestige Glass International of Elliot Lake; Nicholls Yallowega Belanger Architects-Artchitectes of Sudbury; David Liddle of North Bay; Jennifer McNutt and Brent Bywater of Callander; and McChesney Lumber of Timmins.

But most particularly for me was the fact that two small business people from Sault St Marie were centred out for mention and for recognition for the wonderful contribution they make to the small business environment in Sault Ste Marie. One of them is Vic Fremlin, someone we all know in Sault Ste Marie for being the champion of a local dairy called Lock City Dairies. He was certainly centred out with some deserved -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

1340

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Recently I had the pleasure to attend the Premier's Conference on Jobs and Prosperity in Kingston. It was one of seven such conferences taking place across the province this fall.

Prosperity has returned to the province of Ontario. Since our first throne speech, the Ontario economy has created 408,000 net new jobs. In the month of September alone, 64,000 net new jobs were created.

The question we face today is, how do we ensure that Ontario will continue to succeed and win in the competitive economy of tomorrow?

Presentations that addressed that question came from such individuals as the Honourable Bob Runciman, Solicitor General; David Lindsay, president and CEO of the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board; and Finance Minister Ernie Eves.

However, the most impressive presentation did not come from these high-profile individuals but from five students who attend various high schools in my riding. These students were Chandra Pelysz, David Wright, Chris Francis, Shane Griffin and Nisshant Gogna.

These bright, brilliant, intelligent and articulate speakers spoke passionately about their beliefs. These charismatic speakers told the government that they believed their long-term prosperity depended on smaller government and lower taxes.

Thanks for travelling to Kingston.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): One can judge a government best on the action it takes when no one is looking, when it can get away with the action that it is taking.

Without editorials scolding the Premier in our daily newspapers, without reprimands from crusty talk show hosts, without radio and television commentators chastising the government, without the National Citizens' Coalition and the Ontario taxpayers' coalition calling Mike Harris to account, the Conservative government could spend millions upon millions of dollars on blatant self-serving government propaganda, all at the taxpayers' expense. But alas, the tide has turned.

I note that the people who are looking at the closing of Hotel Dieu Hospital wonder how the government has money in the millions to spend on self-serving advertising but must close a local institution which has served so many so well over the years.

The Brantford Expositor has finally exposed this government. It says that when the Tories took office three years ago, they set themselves up on a higher pedestal, promising fiscal rectitude and vowing to bring it into pork-barrel politics. But as we so clearly see this week, the concept of sharing ends at Queen's Park. At the same time that school boards are closing schools, cities are cutting services and some municipalities are having trouble containing their tax increases due to downloading, the Harris government has managed to find millions to spread the word about how wonderful the Premier is. Maybe the Tory brain trust figures you can fool all the people all the time.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today in the House in order to yet again press this provincial government to bring a bit of common sense to the agenda they've imposed on the people of northern Ontario.

The Minister of Community and Social Services, by way of legislation last year, mandated northern municipalities to form what we call district service boards across northern Ontario as a mechanism to be able to deal with the downloading of the provincial government. Well, it's a mess. It's like everything this government touches. They go too fast. They don't think about what they're doing. They just ram their agenda through. Now we've got municipalities in northern Ontario that are at odds with themselves and with the provincial government in trying to find a solution to a problem the government created.

On the other hand, we finally got the government to come forward with a half-decent piece of progressive legislation, Bill 12, that would supposedly allow municipalities to decide for themselves how they want to proceed with the restructuring of downloaded services to the municipal governments. What have we got? A government that introduces a piece of legislation, a government that eventually amends the legislation because of the work of the NDP caucus, and now a government that doesn't want to call its own bill, Bill 12, and give an opportunity for northern people to come to their own solutions.

I call on the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to do the right thing, to take his responsibilities as others before him, such as Shelley Martel, and help the people of northern Ontario help themselves. Do the right thing.

JOB CREATION

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to inform the Legislature of the numerous new businesses that have opened and created jobs in my riding. The number of jobs created by new businesses in Niagara Falls is indeed impressive. In May 1998, Mr Cosimo Di Lollo and Mr Tony Felice opened the Park Plaza Hotel, creating 50 new jobs. In August both men opened the popular East Side Mario's, hiring 100 people.

The Ameri-Cana Resort and Conference Centre, owned by the Dibellonia family, expanded by 47 rooms and opened up a new restaurant called Jack Tanners. The hotel hired an additional 27 people because of the expansion.

There is more. The Marriott Hotel, owned by Victor and Cosmo Menechella, opened in September. The hotel now employs 190 people, most of whom participated in the Ontario Works program.

In mid-September a factory outlet mall opened in my riding. Approximately 240 new jobs have been created during the first phase and hundreds more jobs will be created during phase 2.

Walmart recently opened, creating 240 jobs. Frank Martino recently opened Frank's Tomato Pie, where 60 people now work. Just yesterday, Cosmo Chiouitti opened up Cosmo's Café next door to my riding office. Rita Goulet's business resource centre has recently opened up.

I could go on and on. Just with these new businesses 1,000 new jobs have been created in Niagara Falls.

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm seeking unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That the order referring Bill 66 - that's Mr Chudleigh's bill - An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day to the standing committee on social development be discharged and the bill ordered for third reading.

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

Now you have to move the motion.

Mr Phillips: I move that the order referring Bill 66 to the standing committee on social development be discharged and the bill ordered for third reading.

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

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'd like to seek unanimous consent of the House to allow the pages to leave the chamber at five to 2 so that they go into the lobby to watch the space shuttle take off.

The Speaker: Agreed? I didn't hear a "no," so sure.

1350

ABORTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent for the following resolution to be adopted by this House and forwarded to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Solicitor General Andy Scott and Attorney General Anne McLellan:

Whereas three Canadian physicians have been shot because they provided safe, legal abortions since 1994;

Whereas Canadian physicians have committed up to $500,000 in an effort to bring the person or persons responsible for these shootings to justice;

Whereas it is necessary for all Canadian police forces to co-operate in the investigation of violence and threats of violence against physicians across Canada who provide safe, legal abortions;

Whereas Solicitor General Andy Scott and Attorney General Anne McLellan have refused to provide additional funding to the RCMP to coordinate a proper investigation into these shootings;

Therefore, be it resolved that the federal, provincial and territorial governments co-operate to provide adequate resources to police forces across Canada to conduct a thorough national investigation into the shooting of three Canadian physicians and to ensure the safety and security of all Canadian physicians who provide women with safe, legal abortions.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): So you are asking for unanimous consent to -

Ms Churley: Pass this resolution.

The Speaker: For the House to pass the resolution. OK. Agreed? Agreed.

Now you have to move the resolution.

Ms Churley: I move that this resolution be adopted by this House and forwarded to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Solicitor General Andy Scott and Attorney General Anne McLellan:

Whereas three Canadian physicians have been shot because they provided safe, legal abortions since 1994;

Whereas Canadian physicians have committed up to $500,000 in an effort to bring the person or persons responsible for these shootings to justice;

Whereas it is necessary for all Canadian police forces to co-operate in the investigation of violence and threats of violence against physicians across Canada who provide safe, legal abortions;

Whereas Solicitor General Andy Scott and Attorney General Anne McLellan have refused to provide additional funding to the RCMP to coordinate a proper investigation into these shootings;

The Speaker: Ms Churley has moved -

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker: OK, I've just got to make this right first. Ms Churley has moved that the following resolution be adopted by the House.

Interjections: Dispense.

The Speaker: Hold on. I understand you want to dispense. Let me just make sure we've got the wording proper. So it's the resolution that is being adopted by this House:

"Whereas three Canadian" - now you want to dispense? No? OK.

"Whereas three Canadian physicians have been shot because they provided safe, legal abortions since 1994;

"Whereas Canadian physicians have committed up to $500,000 in an effort to bring the person or persons responsible for these shootings to justice;

"Whereas it is necessary for all Canadian police forces to co-operate in the investigation of violence and threats of violence against physicians across Canada who provide safe, legal abortions;

"Whereas Solicitor General Andy Scott and Attorney General Anne McLellan have refused to provide additional funding to the RCMP to coordinate a proper investigation into these shootings;

"Therefore, be it resolved that the federal, provincial and territorial governments co-operate to provide adequate resources to police forces across Canada to conduct a thorough national investigation into the shooting of three Canadian physicians and to ensure the safety and security of all Canadian physicians who provide women with safe, legal abortions."

Is it the pleasure of the House that this resolution carry? Carried.

Introduction of bills. Member for Wellington - but there will be no one there to pick it up; I want you to know that.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'll deliver it myself.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMERGENCY VOLUNTEERS PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS AUXILIAIRES EN SITUATION D'URGENCE

Mr Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 75, An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 75, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail.

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

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): This bill, which I call the Emergency Volunteers Protection Act, 1998, would amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to ensure that volunteer firefighters and ambulance workers are protected in case of injury.

The bill amends the application of some of the provisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act as they apply to volunteer firefighters and ambulance workers. Amendments will address the level of coverage for these emergency volunteers, the reporting obligations of the municipalities as their deemed employer, the return-to-work and other benefit obligations of their actual employers, and the responsibility of the deemed employer to cover the costs of the actual employer to comply with these obligations.

I would ask all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation.

DEFERRED VOTES

ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts / Projet de loi 35, Loi visant à créer des emplois et à protéger les consommateurs en favorisant le bas prix de l'énergie au moyen de la concurrence, protégeant l'environnement, traitant de pensions et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1356 to 1401.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Curling, Alvin

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 53; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. I have in my hand a cardboard cutout that measures exactly one square foot. This is the only measure that you use to assign a value to a neighbourhood school. It doesn't tell you anything about how important a neighbourhood school is to the neighbourhood that it serves. It doesn't tell you how important it is for parents to be able to walk their children to school. It doesn't tell you how important it is for kids to be able to attend class with other kids from their neighbourhood. It doesn't tell you anything about the Brownies and the Scouts who hold their meetings at the neighbourhood school. It doesn't tell you anything about the seniors' group that met last week at the neighbourhood school. It doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about the fall fair and how people from all across the neighbourhood gathered at the neighbourhood school. The neighbourhood school is the heart and soul of the neighbourhood.

Why are you cutting the heart and the soul out of so many neighbourhoods right across the province?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): As usual, complete nonsense. The provincial government is providing fair funding to the boards across Ontario, funding for classrooms - as a matter of fact, more funding for classrooms, for teachers, for textbooks, for computers - funding for all of their other activities, for operations and maintenance facilities renewal, and allowing the boards to make the decisions that they should make in terms of the most appropriate accommodations, the most appropriate program.

My colleagues in the government value schools as neighbourhood entities and community entities and frankly I encourage and this government encourages school boards to get together to encourage recreational uses, social uses, all other kinds of uses within the communities that are so important to individual communities within their schools.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you don't get it. Public education is not a commercial enterprise. This is not a business. It's not a bottom-line issue in terms of dollars and cents. The school closures here in Toronto alone are going to disrupt the lives of 44,644 children. There have got to be 30,000 families who are going to be affected by these school closures in Toronto alone. This isn't just about heat, it's not just about space, it's not just about light, it's not just about property taxes. You're talking about the value of a neighbourhood school to the neighbourhood. Why don't you agree now that you're going to stand up in this House and you're going to amend your formula so that it incorporates reality, so that it talks about the real needs of children and families in their neighbourhoods and their demand to have their own school in their neighbourhood?

Hon David Johnson: I encourage communities to be involved with their local schools. I encourage parents and members within the communities to discuss this matter with their school boards through the school councils and that neighbourhoods determine the best possible use of their schools. The Ministry of Education does provide funds so that schools can be run in a reasonable fashion and maintained, but there are questions that do crop up. For example, if the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board can operate at $5.05 a square foot, if the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic District School Board can operate and maintain at less than $5 a square foot, why does it take the Toronto school board $6.58 a square foot to operate? We're simply asking that boards be efficient and reasonable. If some boards can operate at a reasonable and efficient level, why can't other boards?

Mr McGuinty: Here's the minister who brought us the incredible shrinking education budget. He brought us textbooks that can be erased. Now he's brought on the scene schools that actually disappear. Here's something that I think should really vanish. You know that $42-million advertising propaganda campaign, that blitz that's coming forward into our living rooms right across this province nightly now? Why don't you take the $42 million out of that campaign and put it into public education? You could save every one of the 130 Toronto schools that are going to be closed, with room for 31 more to be saved. Why don't you stand up in this House and tell us the 42 million bucks is coming out of the campaign to re-elect Mike Harris and going into schools for the benefit of Ontario kids?

Hon David Johnson: We continue to get the usual fearmongering from the Liberal Party. It was just a few months ago that the Liberal Party put out information that there would be 10,000 teachers fired in Ontario - wrong. Then they said there would be 10,000 fewer teachers in Ontario - wrong again. Then they said there would be $1 billion taken out of education - wrong again. There will be at least half a billion dollars more in education.

The thing that really puzzles me about the Liberal Party is that they have fought tooth and nail against providing the textbooks in our elementary classrooms across Ontario. At every turn, you have opposed the purchase of textbooks, the purchase of equipment in our schoolrooms across Ontario.

This government stands for quality education. We're prepared to fight for quality education. Obviously the Liberal Party opposes quality and supports the status quo.

1410

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly, Republic of Cameroon, led by the honourable Speaker of the National Assembly. Welcome.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the same minister. Let's talk now about responsibility for the school closures.

For month after month, when we raise the issue of property tax hikes that are affecting homeowners and businesses right across the province, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says, "That's not my problem; the fault lies with the municipalities."

When we asked the Minister of Health about hospital closures, she said, "Don't blame me; blame that restructuring commission." When we asked her about having the fewest nurses per capita in the country, she said, "That's not my fault; that's the fault of our hospitals."

You talk a lot over there about having the courage to do certain kinds of things. Will you stand up now and have the courage to admit that you and Mike Harris are responsible for school closures in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will stand up and admit that we are in favour of raising the quality of education in Ontario. I will stand up and admit that in addition to raising the quality of education in Ontario, I admit that this government wants to see taxpayers get value for their dollars. I guess that's a great sin to the Liberal Party. But we believe that we can get value for taxpayers' dollars. We can raise the quality of education in Ontario.

That's why we have introduced the new curriculum at the elementary level. That's why we have introduced the new report card that parents can understand. That's why we've introduced province-wide testing, so parents and students will know where they stand. That's why we introduced the $100-million resource purchase for the elementary schools, the textbooks etc. That's why we put the cap on the average class size. These are all elements to improve the quality. That I will confess to. That's what we stand for.

Mr McGuinty: This minister stands up and proudly tells us that he's going to ensure that they give value for taxpayer dollars. What about the $42 million that has been wasted on a campaign to re-elect Mike Harris? At present, we see them beamed into our living rooms every night reminding Ontarians of how angry they should be for this blatant, political, partisan propaganda. Forty-two million dollars could have save 161 schools. You tell me, Minister: How is it that it serves the interests of taxpayers and how is it that it serves the interests of our students and our families in neighbourhoods right across Ontario to plow $42 million into a campaign to have Mike Harris re-elected instead of inside our neighbourhood schools?

Hon David Johnson: I guess this is a case of "Do as I say and not as I do." My notes must be wrong. But when I look down here it says that in 1990 the Liberal Party spent $50 million on advertising. There must be a mistake here somewhere. As a matter of fact, over a period of two years they spent $94 million on advertising. It shows you that the House book isn't always accurate when you come up with numbers like that.

This government did not come into power to maintain the status quo. We came in with a very definite program to make positive changes to get Ontario back on track, and some of those changes were in the education system to improve the quality, all of the items I've outlined to you and many more: the secondary school reform, the increasing number of instructional days in addition to the new curriculum etc.

We need to tell the people of Ontario about these very positive changes. The people of Ontario want to know about them, they want to understand them, and these are changes that are going to improve the education system, in addition to the many other changes we've made to reduce spending in the province to eliminate the deficit. People are asking for that kind of communication. That's what we've been communicating to the people of Ontario and I think they're very positive things that the people want to hear about.

Mr McGuinty: Let me just read a few excerpts from today's Brantford Expositor editorial.

"When the Tories took office three years ago, they set themselves up on a higher pedestal, promising fiscal rectitude and vowing to bring an end to pork-barrel politics. In fact, it was an essential ingredient in their whole strategy. But as we see so clearly this week, the concept of sharing ends at Queen's Park. At the same time that school boards are closing schools, cities are cutting services and some municipalities are having trouble containing their tax increases due to downloading, the Harris government has managed to find millions of dollars to spread the word about how wonderful the Premier is."

My question to you, Minister, is very simple: How can you, the minister charged with assuming special responsibility for the education of Ontario children, sit back and condone and agree to and support the expenditure of $42 million on a campaign to re-elect Mike Harris when that could be used for the benefit of Ontario's students?

Hon David Johnson: I would stack the track record of this government against any other government in the history of Ontario. I would stack it up against the previous government, I'd certainly stack it up against the Liberal government, and even against previous Progressive Conservative governments.

We have eliminated the tax-free allowances for members of this House. We have reduced the size of government. We promised we would do this; we have done it. We have eliminated the pension scheme of the MPPs and we are on track to balance the budget. We are ahead of our plan to balance the budget in Ontario. The NDP couldn't balance the budget; the Liberals couldn't balance the budget. The Liberals, as my colleague has indicated, added $10 billion in expenditures in three years. This government is ahead of track and will balance the budget of the province of Ontario.

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

1420

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Today you dropped a bomb on the city of Toronto schools that's going to touch every corner of this province. Your school funding formula has taken $1 billion out of our schools, and in the city of Toronto alone it's going to force the closure of 160 schools; 160 schools because of your funding formula. It means that 50,000 children will lose their school because you're going to close it, and it means that you're going to take, out of this board of education alone, over $1,000 per student.

Minister, how do you justify closing 160 schools? How do you justify taking out $1,000 per student at the same time that you're giving the wealthiest people in Ontario a very lucrative tax break? How do you justify that?

Hon David Johnson: I expected that the Liberal Party would not have all of their facts straight. I'm very disappointed; I had a higher expectation for the NDP.

The facts are that in the system as a whole there will be at least half a billion dollars more spent in 1998-99 than in the previous school year. The facts are that even in the Toronto District School Board, even in that one district school board, there will be more money spent in this school year than in the previous school year; more money spent in the Toronto District School Board.

The member raises the Toronto board. I challenged the Toronto board this morning to put forward their list of administrative buildings for closure before dislocating one student. Through the process of amalgamation, that board has seven major administrative buildings. Why can't they consolidate that down and save money there rather than looking at dislocating their students? That's the challenge I put to the Toronto board.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Minister, you want to talk about facts, let's talk about facts. Under your own funding formula, any savings from those administrative structures or the surplus schools that you say are there could not be used to run the schools that would remain, unless you're prepared to change your funding formula, which so far you've said you haven't been willing to do. Take a look at your own funding formula before you lecture us about the facts.

Let me give you some more facts. In my own west end community of Davenport and Dovercourt, take a good, hard look: 16 public and Catholic schools are slated to close. In an area that serves 70,000 people - that's an area larger than the city of North Bay - there would be three public elementary schools left. Is that your sense of justice? Is that your sense of public education under the Mike Harris world? When are you going to change your funding formula and realize that you will not get away with these kinds of cuts in the public education system of this province?

Hon David Johnson: Each board is looking at its own circumstances. I might say that the Toronto public board spends, as I indicated earlier, $6.58 per square foot. The Toronto Catholic board spends $5.37, about $1.20 less per square foot to maintain space. We're talking about the same city and one board spending $1.20 less. On behalf of the taxpayers, doesn't it make sense to ask the Toronto board, "Look, if the Catholic board can maintain at $1.20 less, why can't the Toronto public board do the same thing?"

There's a lot of fearmongering going on, there's no question about that - again, at one time, 10,000 teachers fewer in the system, and today we know that's not the case; 10,000 teachers laid off, not the case. When the boards sit down and look at these at the end of the day, as has happened in Thames Valley, as is happening in Avon Maitland -

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, you're taking a page from the Premier's book in standing there and saying: "We are not the government. We don't take responsibility."

Let me remind you that Catholic school boards are affected in just the same way by this. In my riding of Riverdale I have nine schools clustered close together, often in low-income areas, plus three Catholic schools in the same area on your hit list. Minister, I am going to stand here today and I am going to tell you that my community will not put up with you and your government closing schools in Riverdale. These are inner-city schools. They are not just about teaching the 3Rs. They provide all kinds of programs, breakfast clubs, lunch clubs, programs for a lot of low-income people.

Dundas school houses the only First Nations school in Toronto. Where is that school going to go? This is nuts. You've got stop this. You have the responsibility, you have the power. You've got our communities up in arms. I want you to commit to stop tearing apart our communities and change the funding formula today.

Hon David Johnson: I'd say to the member opposite that she should encourage her communities to be involved in these decisions, and I encourage communities to be involved. They should be speaking their minds to the local school boards in letting them know how they feel and looking for ways and means that community uses can be included in schools to make sure they're viable.

But at the same time, let's just see the amounts of money that are available through the formula. In the case of the Catholic school board here in Toronto, last year their total revenues were about $624 million. This year, through the funding formula, the amounts of revenue available will be $695 million, which is an increase of about $70 million.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Oh, my goodness.

Ms Churley: Dianne, I would be quiet if I were you on this one. You know nothing about my community.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Riverdale, come to order, please. Member for Scarborough East, come to order, please. I appreciate all the assistance.

Hon David Johnson: I think this kind of information should be brought to the attention of the board and that the parents should be working with their boards in fighting for their local schools, absolutely. That's what I would encourage.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister of Education, stop blaming everyone else. This is a direct result of your Bill 160 and your funding formula.

Schools in my community, like Bowmore, over 900 kids: We just celebrated its 75th anniversary. A former principal who was there, Lloyd Dennis of the Hall-Dennis report, condemned your government for your so-called education reforms and called it a decimation of our schools. Schools like Williamson Road in the heart of the Beach, over 400 kids, in an area where the schools are already overcrowded, in a community where hundreds and hundreds of new families are moving into the Greenwood Race Track and the CN lands -

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would caution members, I think there's got to be a better word than accusing someone of fearmongering. See if you can find one. I'd appreciate it. I doesn't add to the debate.

1430

Ms Lankin: Minister, we've got developments going on at Greenwood Race Track and the CN lands at Main and Gerrard, hundreds and hundreds of new families coming into a community, and despite what your members say, our schools are already overcrowded. Schools like East York Alternative are affected, schools like Courcelette. Over 1,600 kids are forced out of their schools by your funding formula, and that's going to affect thousands more in the schools they go into.

The schools also have child care centres. The schools on the list today for closure mean the loss of 300 more child care spaces in the city of Toronto. What are you going to do to make sure those centres stay open? Let me tell you, blaming someone else isn't going to do it. I'll be damned if you're going to wreak this kind of havoc on my community.

Hon David Johnson: I am, as are the members of the government, fully aware of the benefit and the need for community schools. My local community school that I first attended when I was five years old celebrated its 150th anniversary. It must be one of the oldest public schools in Ontario, the Greensville public school outside of the town of Dundas.

Interjection: Dave was in the first grade.

Hon David Johnson: No, I wasn't in the first grade when it opened.

Let's remember, though, what this funding formula is all about. The funding formula is all about ensuring a fair opportunity to quality education for all our students across Ontario. We know that in the past some students, some young people in various communities did not have access to quality education because of the tax base of their community. What we have done is that, first of all, there is an extra $500 million or $600 million in funding of elementary and secondary, and then ensure fair access across Ontario -

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Minister, I'm not a cricket player, but I've got tell you, you throw a lot of googlies around. Everyone except you seems to know -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Durham East, thanks for your advice, but I think "googly" is in order and you're not, because you're not in your seat. Member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker, for that ruling.

Minister, everyone except you seems to know that schools are more than classrooms, that they are the heart of our communities, schools such as those that are potentially going to close in my area: Charles G. Fraser, Givins/Shaw, Grace Street, Kensington Community, Montrose, Ogden Junior, Orde, Ossington/Old Orchard, Hayden Park, St Peter's, St Lucy, St Raymond, St Francis. These schools that could close in my area provide recreation centres, swimming pools, playgrounds, meeting places, learning centres for adults. Your mathematical formulas are wrong. They don't work, and they don't work because they are not human formulas. Minister, are you going to be the Pied Piper that is going to leave our communities bereft of children and schools? Are you going to be that Pied Piper?

Hon David Johnson: The key words that the member has used are "could close." Some school boards are putting out long lists of schools that could close. It's remarkable that in most instances, at the end of the day, the number of schools they really look at is a much smaller list than they first put out. I guess it's just a remarkable coincidence that's the way it's always worked.

It's up to the school boards to determine where they should allocate their funds. The member opposite seems to be of some opinion that the provincial government is allocating funds school by school, board by board, and the member opposite I'm sure knows that's not really the case. The provincial government is providing monies to the school boards. In terms of operations and maintenance, yes, I'll confess that right across Ontario as a whole there is about a 1.5% difference this year over last year, less operations and maintenance money across the province. In terms of the total funding, classroom funding, there is an extra $500 million, at least $500 million, that boards have to -

The Speaker: Final supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Minister, what we're asking you to do is to take responsibility for your decisions and take responsibility for your school funding formula. Nobody else created this formula but you, and you are the person who is going to close the hundreds of schools, you are the person who is going to disrupt the lives of thousands of children.

I'm going to send you an invitation to come with me out to the west end of Toronto and see what's going to happen to children when you close their local school and they will have to march 20 minutes up a large hill and then cross one of the busiest streets in Toronto to get to the only school that's going to be left open. Any time you want to come, you come to the west end of Toronto, we'll walk with the students from Cottingham public school, all right? Here's the invitation. Any time you want to -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Maybe "hysteria" was the word you were looking for.

If there are safety problems associated with this particular school, then I would encourage anybody who's aware of those safety problems - the parents, the school council, anyone - to raise it to the attention of the school board.

I have some confidence in local school boards that they're able to make these kinds of decisions. We provide them with the resources, the operations and maintenance resources, the classroom resources, and with input from their parents and their local communities they'll make wise decisions in terms of the accommodation of their local schools.

When the NDP were in power, there were over 100 schools that were closed across Ontario. School boards came to these decisions to make the best possible decisions in conjunction with their parents, and that's the process they're going through at the present time.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Earlier today in this Legislature a resolution was debated. That resolution requires the government to introduce an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and it sets out in very specific terms in the resolution 11 separate principles that are to be incorporated into that legislation, which, as I understand it, you are going to be introducing in this Legislature.

I have a very simple question to ask you on behalf of the 1.5 million members of the disabled community in Ontario: Do you support that resolution? Will you introduce legislation which incorporates the 11 specific principles laid out in the resolution, debated and supported by everybody in this Legislature, all those present earlier today?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, all of us in this Legislature, in fact in Ontario I'd think, are committed to the principle of improving access for people with disabilities. Where we differ is on how we are going to achieve that goal. Your approach and the approach that was in the non-binding resolution that was passed by everybody involved more bureaucracy and job quotas, among other things, for starters.

As a legislator, my job is to listen to and balance the needs of all sectors of our society, and that does not mean that we are not committed to bringing in and introducing an ODA, which the Premier did promise, which we are committed to doing and which we are well on the way to doing.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Minister, we've spent a lot of time speaking to people with disabilities all across Ontario. They all know that your proposal was hollow. It was little more than window dressing so you can say that Mike Harris kept his word. They know that your government's priority is spending money on re-election advertising. You said a minute ago that you had the full support of the House. Is that why not a single minister was present this morning to vote on our Liberal resolution?

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say somebody with your experience in the House should know that private members' resolutions are for debate in the House by private members, and that is exactly what happened this morning in the House, and I'm happy to hear that our members and in fact all members in the House showed their commitment to moving forward on legislation that is going to improve access for people with disabilities.

1440

ABORTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, earlier this afternoon I think we probably made history here by agreeing, all of us in this place, unanimously, to a resolution that requires the government of this province and all governments to join together to try and combat violence against physicians who are performing safe, legal abortions.

You may know that in the last week, physicians who are working in Canada in this area have received threats of death, so this is a very urgent matter and it's something that has mobilized people all over North America to talk in clear solidarity with physicians who are performing these tasks.

Today and tomorrow your Attorney General is meeting with his federal and provincial counterparts in Regina. I understand that this issue, this threat to doctors who provide abortions, is not on the agenda.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, since we have agreed and members of cabinet have agreed to this resolution today, will you undertake to communicate this resolution to the Attorney General and ask him to bring it forward at the federal-provincial-territorial -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I would be pleased to do that.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I want to thank the entire House today for support of my resolution earlier. As everybody here knows and as the minister knows, we've already witnessed one tragedy this week. We're afraid there are going to be more. The latest threat underlines the danger involved here for doctors performing this service, for the women who seek it, and for their right to obtain this service.

Canadian doctors and clinics have put up half a million dollars towards this investigation. The FBI has put up $100,000. The task force has said that it "can't do it right without proper funding."

I know to date the federal Liberals have refused a request for additional funding. Maybe our resolution will help change their minds on that. I'm asking you today if you can commit to your government doing the right thing here. Will you stand by the women and doctors of this province and provide this badly needed funding to the task force?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think the intent was there for all of us in the resolution. I think it would be more appropriate if we had some discussion with the opposition parties in this regard before I commit to anything that we haven't had any discussions with the Minister of Finance on, and we will work on that together with the other members in the House.

SPACE SCIENCES

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Ontario has a long history of participation in the Canadian space program. Five astronauts have close ties to this province: Dave Williams, with Sunnybrook; Chris Hadfield, born in Sarnia; Roberta Bondar, McMaster research; Steve MacLean, born in Ottawa; and Julie Payette, who attended the University of Toronto.

Like other Canadians, people in my riding of Mississauga East were, I'm sure, watching with special interest this afternoon when John Glenn returned to space in the Discovery. Will you please tell this House what special significance a launch like the STS-95 mission today holds for the people of Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): As the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the crew of STS-95, today's space shuttle mission. You can see how excited people get about the space shuttle still and its launches. Members will notice that for the first 20 minutes of the session today, our pages weren't with this because they were in the wings watching this on television.

Canadians of course benefit greatly from NASA's program, particularly the space shuttle program. The work that Dave Williams did with respect to orientation in space and the effect of zero gravity will have major repercussions for the medical sciences and life sciences. Positive things will come from that research as the data are being analyzed.

In today's shuttle, of course, John Glenn, the oldest astronaut ever to go into space, will be doing experiments in osteoporosis. There are three Canadian experiments on board, one in osteoporosis and two in microgravity, which will contribute to bone marrow transplant procedures and possibly a cure for breast cancer, or at least a treatment of breast cancer.

On behalf of all Ontarians, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate John Glenn, who is not only an American hero but a North American hero, and we wish them Godspeed.

Mr DeFaria: In his last budget, the Minister of Finance told this House that the Canadian Advanced Technology Association has projected a shortfall of 42,000 computer scientists and computer-related engineers over the next five years. Minister, can you tell this House what's being done to generate the kind of student interest in technology that will be required if we are going to meet the demands of business and industry for knowledge workers in the future?

Hon Mr Wilson: In the last budget the government announced the ATOP program administered by the Minister of Education and Training. It's the access to opportunities program, or double the pipeline, which will produce some 17,000 computer science graduates and science graduates, which are very much in need in this province. Some 10,000 to 20,000 jobs are going unfilled in this province right now because our people need their skills upgraded or the young people need to have the skills to fill those jobs in high technology. As the honourable member for Mississauga East said, two thirds of the jobs created in this province in the last 10 years have been created in the high-tech sector.

Dave Williams' shuttle, the last time the shuttle went up, my ministry sponsored much of the science on that on behalf of Ontarians and on behalf of people of the world.

For this shuttle today, I'm proud to announce that two schools in my riding are part of the "signatures in space" program sponsored by Lockheed Martin. In both Thor public school in Thornton and Byng public school, the kids have signed posters which I gave to Lockheed Martin last week in Ottawa to be transferred down to the shuttle. Those posters are travelling on the shuttle. Four of our students are down in NASA today supervising, in the way that they will, the launch today. Justin Trout, Travis Weatherall, April Lococo and Jeremy Cober of Byng public school in Stayner are down there. They've helped push the button for this launch. Part of the "signatures in space" program is getting young people interested in science and technology, because the jobs are there.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Deputy Premier, and it's a question concerning the cuts you are making on Monday to Whitby Mental Health Centre. Deputy Premier, I'd like you to take responsibility for this because there has been a pattern here of an attack on sick people, and your ministers have consistently refused to stand up and acknowledge that they are running the health care system in this province.

In this case, forensic beds were added in that hospital and not enough money was provided. They cannot, by law, discharge these forensic patients, so instead they've had to cut $2.3 million in the Whitby hospital, and $750,000 more is going to be cut on Monday. Nursing shifts are going to be cut down. There's an entire hypocrisy here if you permit them - they don't close beds, but the nursing care isn't there. That puts the patients at risk; it frankly puts the staff at risk.

Minister, I'd like you to stand up today and say that the cuts planned for Monday aren't going to happen.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): There have been no funding reductions to the Whitby Mental Health Centre this year. The funding is $4 million this year for the forensic unit at the Whitby Mental Health Centre. That is not being touched. It is not being reduced. In fact, there can be no reduction in services or programs at the Whitby Mental Health Centre without the acknowledgement and concurrence of the Ministry of Health, which will not be forthcoming.

Mr Kennedy: This is exactly the problem. The forensic unit didn't get enough money, so $2.3 million has to be taken from the rest of the facility. That $2.3 million isn't even half of the money you're wasting on health care propaganda ads. You won't give the $2.3 million. What that means is they've gotten rid of a program to integrate mentally ill people into the community. How do you feel about that? They're getting rid of a day program for the most sick psycho-geriatric people they've got. That's already cut, it's already gone, and they've got still more cuts to make.

Dr Anne Dyer from OPSEU and other staff are here today because they are afraid of what's going to happen. In the last three years there have been eight suicides. In the three years before that, there were only two. They want a review to see if there's a connection between the cuts in service and what's happening there. But most of all what they want is for you to acknowledge that the forensic unit takes more money than you've given it and that the rest of the facility is being made to pay. There is risk for the patients and risk for the staff. Minister, will you at least hold off the cuts until this has been reviewed to make sure that the community is safe, the patients are safe and the staff are safe?

Hon Mr Eves: There are no cuts. The funding is not being reduced. In fact, the total number of beds has been increased in the facility since 1995. It went from 287 beds in 1994-95 to 325 beds in 1997-98. The government has increased the number of forensic beds by 20% over a two-year period of time, and this is part of that commitment.

1450

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education. I want to return him to his damaging policy and the harm it's doing to my community of Hamilton-Wentworth. I want to read to him from an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator.

It's headed up "School Closure Policy is Wrong."

"This is wrong. The provincial government's latest education funding reforms are arbitrary, narrow and heavy-handed in their demand for unseemly haste. By insisting that school boards provide a definitive list of schools to be closed by year's end, the government is virtually eliminating the chance for meaningful local involvement."

That's undemocratic. I'm here to tell you, Minister, that a week ago today my local school board, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, agreed with that statement. I'm proud to tell you that they unanimously decided to stand up to your dictatorial edict and said, "No, you're not going to shut down over 40 schools in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth." They're not going to meet your unfair, arbitrary, undemocratic time lines. But because they would dare to defy your edicts, they are therefore going to feel the wrath of losing millions of dollars in funding every year; not for one year, not for two years but for 25 years. Minister, this is unacceptable. You must inject democracy back into this policy.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm actually happy to report to the member opposite that they're not defying any edict. The boards are under no compulsion to report at the end of the year.

I will say further that in terms of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, the monies for operations and maintenance are actually almost 3% higher this year for that board. For the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, the operations and maintenance monies are about 18% higher for that board this year. So those are two boards that have additional monies for operations and maintenance. I mentioned that across Ontario the net difference is about 1.5%, but in the case of Hamilton, both boards are receiving additional monies for operations and maintenance. Both boards are looking at their accommodation needs with their parents, and I'm sure they'll come to the appropriate decisions.

Mr Christopherson: Let me read another editorial that came out the day after our board took that decision.

"A Community Decision on Schools."

"The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board took a bold gamble when it refused to let the province's draconian funding formula and schedule dictate the fate of local schools. It had little choice."

In ending the previous editorial I read to you, they said, "This newspaper has been, and will continue to be, supportive of much of the Harris government's agenda." Not this time. This is bad public policy. It's just wrong.

Minister, words like "draconian," "dictatorial," "arbitrary," "unseemly," "wrong," "narrow," "heavy-handed" and "undemocratic," that's what your friends are saying about this policy. Imagine how the vast majority of the people in Hamilton-Wentworth feel about it. You talk about people being involved in democracy, getting involved in decision-making. Your policy would have left us two weeks for public input on the question of closing over 40 schools. I can't think of anything more undemocratic than that policy, because now that we've decided to let democracy flow in Hamilton, we're going to lose millions of dollars in the education system for the next 25 years. Minister, amend the formula and withdraw these dictatorial terms.

Hon David Johnson: I'm not sure what the member refers to when he says two weeks. The funding formula was introduced in March and the monies were introduced in March. We have asked school boards, if they wish to adjust their inventory for next year's funding, to let us know by the end of the year. Even that is still two months away. If they don't wish to do that, some boards, such as the board here in Toronto, will most likely take advantage of being able to sell the properties they have, keep the revenues from the sales of those properties, and use those monies for investing in the schools they have in terms of additions to the schools, renovations in the schools -

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, they can use it for renovations in the schools, sure.

Mr Christopherson: Only for capital, not for operating.

Hon David Johnson: You ask about the operating. Both the public board and the separate board are receiving net additional fund increases for both boards.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In our election campaign we ran on a platform of "an efficient and productive manner that focuses on results and puts the customer first," when talking about government work. As past president of the Brampton Board of Trade, which owns a motor vehicle licence bureau in Brampton, I understand that on Monday you are providing some improved service delivery by offering some wider range of services than are available by the MVLB. Can you update me on these services, Minister?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank the honourable member for Brampton North for the question. In fact the announcement on Monday will lead to a definite improvement in service for Ontarians. A total of 17 transactions will be added to the services and products offered by a network of over 283 small business operators across the province, the private issuers. Previously these services were only offered by a limited number of government offices, so I think there's an improvement right there.

The 283 small business operators will deliver driver and vehicle licensing services on behalf of MTO in 215 communities across Ontario. This includes increased access for your constituents in the three offices in Brampton and four nearby in Mississauga as well. With these offices, by providing 63% of the ministry's driver licensing transactions and 90% of the vehicle licensing transactions, I think we can provide better service for Ontarians. I want you to know that the Ministry of Transportation is continually looking for ways to provide Ontarians with improved services that meet their needs.

Mr Spina: That's great news, Minister, but we have 283 small business people here and they are trying to make a living delivering services on behalf of the province. Are there other services? Is this going to impact on their bottom line? Will it really help our customers, the consumers out there, Joe Public, if I may?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): And Jill Public.

Hon Mr Clement: And Jill Public, that's right.

I think it will be of benefit to the small business operators and to the consumers. Let me just say for the record some of the 17 transactions that will now be included for our private issuers: replacing lost, stolen or destroyed drivers' licenses; changing personal information on a driver's record; applying for a graphic licence plate; replacing a driving instructor's licence; applying for a driver's licence refund; obtaining a temporary driver's licence when authorized by the Ministry of Transportation; returning a driver's licence to the ministry for any reason, for example, suspension.

These transactions are in addition to the wide array of services that are already offered by the 283 local small business operators, including paying outstanding parking tickets, obtaining a new regular series licence plate, transferring a vehicle to a different owner or paying a licence reinstatement fee. As well, taxpayers have access to a number of services offered at over 60 kiosks across the province. Obviously those kiosks are available to our constituents 24 hours a day. I'm very proud of -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. New question.

PROBATE AND ESTATE FEES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week, as you know, the Ontario Court of Appeal made a very significant ruling. They ruled that the province had no legal authority to collect about $400 million of estate or probate fees. Essentially they said that the Ontario probate or the estate fees were really a tax, not a fee, and taxes can't be imposed without the approval of the Legislature. In other words, these fees were set by the cabinet and they should have been set by the Legislature. I think all the members in the House are getting calls from people affected by this. Can you tell the House what it is you plan to do about the $400-million problem you have? What advice should we give our constituents who are faced with probate or estate fees?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that the Ministry of the Attorney General is currently reviewing the decision of the Supreme Court. As he will know, the court has suspended the operation of its declaration for a six-month period of time to permit not just this government but all governments, I presume, across the country to get a game plan together so they can respond to the very question the member's asking.

1500

Mr Phillips: It was a landmark decision. Most people believe it could have a profound impact on other areas of revenue. Some lawyers I've talked to indicate that it may have an impact on the property tax area where the province right now is raising about $5.5 billion to pay for education. You will remember that in one of your tax bills the bill gives the Harris government the power to prescribe property tax rates for school purposes by regulation; in other words, not here in the Legislature but by cabinet.

It seems to me and to some lawyers I've talked to that this was the very matter the Court of Appeal dealt with, that it is inappropriate to set tax rates by regulation, by cabinet. It should be done here in the Legislature. Some believe that your current property tax bills will be similarly ruled invalid as was the probate fee. We will be having your seventh tax bill coming forward in the next few days. My question is this: Have you legal advice on the impact the ruling had? Do you plan to revise your tax bills to take into account the judge's decision last week?

Hon Mr Eves: As I said with respect to probate fees, which all governments have been collecting across Canada and in Ontario the same way for many, many years, obviously that's going to have an impact on how current and future governments go forward.

With respect to property tax, I don't believe the situation is similar. With respect to property taxes being collected for education purposes, there is no doubt that not only the $2.5 billion being collected in the education tax portion of property taxes is being spent in education, but as a matter of fact this year some $14.4 billion will be spent on education. It's not a question of the money being raised by the tax not being spent on education which, I understand by the way, was the issue with respect to probate fees.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the minister responsible for privatization. This morning the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care were in Ottawa for their latest pre-election photo op. They announced the opening of 320 long-term-care beds in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Minister, 270 of these beds were awarded to private for-profit corporations: Omni Health Care and Central Care Corp. It's my understanding that the Montfort Hospital, Salvation Army Grace Hospital and the Royal Ottawa hospital all bid for those long-term-care beds. These are all publicly owned, community-based hospitals with decades of experience in patient care, yet they were rejected in favour of private corporations. Minister, do you expect the people of Ontario to believe that these decisions are happening by choice, that this isn't yet another example of the Harris government's plan to move Ontario to an American style of privatized health care?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I'll refer this question to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The honourable member will be aware that in 1988 a previous administration froze the number of long-term-care beds in the province. This government has announced an additional 20,000 long-term-care beds for Ontario, an expenditure well in excess of $1 billion.

Obviously the government and the people of Ontario want to get the best care they can for the dollars they are spending. The announcement today in the Ottawa area was with respect to an award or a placement of some 320 long-term-care beds in the Ottawa-Carleton region. I think it was an appropriate method of determining how we can provide the best care for the most number of people possible.

Mrs Boyd: The government's news release is entitled, and I quote, "Health Care Money in All the Right Places." We already know that this means more health care money in the pockets of private corporations. There's another place the money is going. Every single new bed announced today is in a riding held by a member of your government. Is that a coincidence too?

Your plans call for 1,313 more beds in Ottawa by the year 2005, but there are 1,643 seniors on the Ottawa waiting list right now, and we know how many more there will be with our aging population. They can't wait seven years.

Minister, will you come clean and admit to this House that the money in all the right places is buying love in all the right places for Conservative members and that these overdue, hyped-up announcements are really about pre-election handouts and the privatization of health care in Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: The 320 beds announced today was the first instalment in over 1,300 beds to be announced in the continuing care field in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Island Lodge, by the way, happens to be in the riding of the member for Ottawa East. These are not done with respect to political affiliation; they are done with respect to need, by a fair and proper request for proposals. That's it.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yesterday you introduced legislation to amend the Child and Family Services Act. No other government within the past 10 years has attempted to make significant changes to the CFSA. The articles I read in today's papers give this government a great deal of credit for introducing this legislation - "Children's Rights Put Ahead of Family in Changes to Law," "Ontario to Beef Up Child Protection," "Tories Move to Protect Children" - very good comments and a great deal of credit thrown your way, Minister.

But there were some critics, and some of the concerns were with regard to funding for children's aid societies. I wonder if you can inform the House about that.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): If there is any credit to share, it is with all the people in the sector, who helped very much in designing that new legislation.

The member is quite right that not only is there legislation that is needed, there are many other pieces of reform that are needed to make the system better protect our kids, and resources are certainly part of it. Last year we invested $15 million into child welfare, child protection. That resulted in 220 new front-line staff.

That money has meant, for the Niagara region, over $220,000 more for that children's aid society in that community. This year there will be $20 million more invested, next year that is $60 million and the year after is $90 million.

Not only are we putting in new money, though, we're also changing the way that money goes to children's aid societies. As many people may know, they have a very unwieldy system called contingency funding. We want to have a system of funding that better meets the needs of children's aid societies.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from people concerned about the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital. It 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;

"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 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;

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

1510

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition regarding the continuing rip-off of $36.3 million from my community of Hamilton-Wentworth by this government.

"Whereas the Harris government's `downloading' to municipal taxpayers is directly responsible for the $36.3-million shortfall to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' is directly responsible for creating a property tax crisis in our region; and

"Whereas the Harris government, while boasting about its 30% tax cut which benefits mainly the wealthy, is making hard-working families, seniors, homeowners and businesses pay the price with outrageous property tax hikes and user fees for services; and

"Whereas city and regional councillors are being unfairly blamed and forced to explain these huge tax hikes, Hamiltonians know that what's really going on is that they are being forced to pay huge property tax increases to fund Harris's 30% tax giveaway to the rich; and

"Whereas homeowners, including seniors and low-income families, are facing huge property tax increases ranging from several hundred to thousands of dollars; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' has led to huge property tax increases for business that will force many small and medium-sized businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth to close or leave the community, putting people out of work; and

"Whereas Hamilton-Wentworth region is proposing that the Harris government share in the costs of an expanded rebate program, worth about $3 million region-wide;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government immediately eliminate the $36.3-million downloading shortfall that is devastating and angering homeowners as well as killing businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth."

I continue to support my local taxpayers who are being ripped off by the Harris government.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm very pleased to present a petition on behalf of one of my constituents, a person whom I know means everything that's on this petition - Miss Wilhelmina Van Boxtel from Bowmanville.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video retail outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

I'm pleased to support this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the hospital restructuring commission established by the Mike Harris government deliberated in secret about the future of hospitals in the Niagara region and reported 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 add my name to this petition as I'm in complete agreement with its contents.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree and affix my signature.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege to present a petition:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition signed by thousands of my constituents in my Kenora riding. It's a petition to the Honourable Mike Harris which reads:

"Whereas there are circumstances at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital that could cause the cessation of the anaesthetists' services, the loss of two psychiatrists and the loss of the diabetic education service in the near future; and

"Whereas these facilities are required by the people in a very large area, the Kenora district; and

"Whereas even a short-term elimination of these facilities could result in the loss of the professionals providing these services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, are calling on your government to provide an immediate long-term solution to guarantee the continuation of the health care facilities currently available at our district hospital."

I've certainly added my name to that petition.

SCHOOL PRAYER

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

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has announced its intention of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $18 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives `whiners' when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that the Mike Harris proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Harris government refuses to listen to the representatives who work most closely with their constituents, that is, municipal representatives;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris Conservative government to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property taxes or an unacceptable cut to important local services, or both."

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

1520

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have a petition signed by people in my riding. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the employment insurance account has an accumulated surplus of $19 billion and will have a surplus of $7.1 billion in 1998 alone; and

"Whereas the federal Finance Minister, Paul Martin, and the federal Liberal cabinet are considering ways to legalize the use of the employment insurance surplus for purposes other than employment insurance; and

"Whereas the funds in the EI account do not belong to the federal government but to the workers and employers who paid into it; and

"Whereas the surplus funds in the EI account should only be used to provide benefits to the unemployed, for increasing those benefits, for increasing opportunities for work or training or returning the money through employment insurance payroll tax cuts to the workers; and

"Whereas in 1997 Ontarians contributed about $8 billion to the EI account but got back less than $3.5 billion in benefits; and

"Whereas the chief actuary for the EI account said that the account would have operated on a break-even basis this year if premiums were lowered from $2.70 for every $100 of insurable earnings to $1.81; and

"Whereas a premium cut would create 200,000 new jobs across Canada, with a great many of them here in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the federal Liberal government to not use the EI surplus for purposes other than employment insurance, to follow the advice of the chief actuary and lower premiums, and to make the EI account more accountable to workers and employers who pay into it."

I attach my signature as I'm in full agreement with the contents of the petition.

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora is a necessary program; and

"Whereas the Harris government has refused to provide long-term funding for diabetes education in Kenora; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has acknowledged that the program is cost-effective given the volume of clients seen and the degree of specialization required;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, join our MPP, Frank Miclash, in calling upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the Harris government provide long-term, stable funding to the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora."

I have certainly added my name to that petition as well.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to assist tourist operators in northern Ontario is a $30-million industry annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists, particularly from Toronto, have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and to end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

I fully agree with this and will sign it forthwith.

PROSTATE CANCER

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

"To the government of Ontario:

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

"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 Ministry 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 with this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised in the Common Sense Revolution to maintain health care spending at no less than $17.4 billion annually; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has exceeded that spending floor every year since being elected; and

"Whereas total health care spending for 1998-99 will be $18.5 billion, the highest in Ontario's history; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has achieved this despite cuts in transfer payments by the federal Liberal government of more than $2.4 billion; and

"Whereas a recent survey by the Fraser Institute proves that health care waiting lists in Ontario are the shortest anywhere in Canada; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is placing a greater emphasis on community-based health services in order to better care for an aging population; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is eliminating waste and duplication in the health care sector and reinvesting every penny it finds into quality services; and

"Whereas this has resulted in reinvestments of over $3 billion; and

"Whereas seniors will benefit from the government's $1.2-billion investment to increase seniors' beds by 35%, including 2,200 new beds in Toronto alone; and

"Whereas $75 million is being invested over the next two years to open hospital beds during peak demand periods in order to handle emergency patients; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government created Cancer Care Ontario to coordinate and integrate cancer treatment services province-wide; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has pledged $24.3 million to dramatically expand breast cancer screening; and

"Whereas 140,000 additional low-income earners are eligible to receive help with their drug costs through the expansion of the Trillium drug plan;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We clearly don't have a quorum to hear this important piece of legislation.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Check for a quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

Mrs Ross, on behalf of Mr Tsubouchi, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act in respect of brew on premise facilities / Projet de loi 57, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les permis d'alcool en ce qui concerne les centres de brassage libre-service.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I'm pleased to rise on behalf of Minister Tsubouchi in support of Bill 57. This legislation addresses the need to clarify rules about customer involvement in the making of beer and wine on brew-on-premise facilities.

Brew-on-premise operations began in the mid-1980s to provide a convenient means for hobbyists to make their own beer and wine. Originally they offered a service to people who didn't have the facilities in their own basements or in their own homes, nor the equipment to do their own brewing. They also offered some expertise to those people. Today the industry has grown to an estimated 480 brew-on-premise operators in the province. While most of these facilities provide a legitimate opportunity for hobbyists to make their own beer and wine, some brew-on-premise operators require little participation by the customer in the manufacturing process. As a result, some operators are becoming more like breweries and wineries, and there have been instances of illegal activities. As a matter of fact, of the 22 charges investigated against brew-on-premise operators in 1997, 11 were laid.

1530

This may be caused in part by existing guidelines, which are voluntary and are not as clear as they could be in describing acceptable practices. As the sector has grown, so has the level of concern about these and other questionable practices, such as the use of advertising that appears to promote overconsumption. In addition, the Brew on Premise Association of Ontario says the lack of clarity is putting operators who do follow the guidelines at a competitive disadvantage. The Brew on Premise Association of Ontario has asked us to clarify these guidelines to produce a level playing field to ensure fair and consistent treatment for everyone.

This legislation would allow us to clarify in regulation practices that are acceptable and those that are not. It would also enable us to license brew-on-premise operators in a manner similar to other licensees in the beverage alcohol industry.

This would accomplish several objectives. It would help to ensure facilities are operated as originally intended, providing services to people who want to make their own beer and wine; it would establish an acceptable level of customer involvement in the manufacturing process; it would level the playing field for all operators; and it would ensure advertising and promotions are consistent with the principles of responsible use or service of liquor.

This legislation would in no way restrict the ability of consumers to make their own beer and wine. As a matter of fact, many thousands of people across this province use the services of brew-on-premise operators to make their own beer and wine, and the brew-on-premise sector is providing a valuable service. Brew-on-premise operations have helped to open up the world of beer- and wine-making to those who could not brew at home or chose not to invest in equipment.

It may seem out of character for this government to add more regulations. Members should note, however, that the Red Tape Review Commission supports this initiative. As a matter of fact, the commission met with stakeholders and worked with them to ensure that the regulatory principles that were put in place would guide the development of standards. These include operational methods and practices, storage, consumption, removal and record-keeping.

This legislation would enable us to address issues within the sector by establishing fair and reasonable standards for brew-on-premise operations. The brew-on-premise sector would be stronger in the long term and, as I mentioned earlier, there would be no restriction on the ability of consumers to continue to make their own beer and wine.

There are many people across this province who enjoy making their own beer and wine and use these facilities because either they can't afford the equipment that's required or they don't have the space in their home. Sometimes they use them for the social activity involved in going to these facilities and mingling with other people involved in the same hobby. It has become a very important sector in the province and it's important that we ensure that everybody operates on a fair, level playing field.

I spoke earlier about the support from the Brew on Premise Association of Ontario. I'd just like to quote from their letter that was sent to the minister on July 13: "As you can appreciate, our membership is quite diverse and it is quite a large task to ensure that all operations are operating under the same guidelines." They're very supportive of seeing this legislation go through, and I therefore urge all members to support this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions and comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciated the succinct arguments which were made in favour of this bill. I should indicate to members of the House after the parliamentary assistant's address to the House that we of course will be supporting this bill, and I don't anticipate that we will have third reading debate, although one never knows what happens in these matters.

I will be splitting my time with Alvin Curling, the member for Scarborough North, and Michael Colle, the member for Oakwood, will be spending some time discussing this as well, when they are able to pry themselves away from a committee.

Bill 57, I just wanted - I'll say that when I get up to make my remarks, but in response, because I'm responding to the member, I can indicate to her early off that I think there's a consensus that has developed around this bill. It's a relatively minor bill in terms of what we do in the Legislature, but for those who are directly affected, it has some considerable impact.

While brew pubs have become popular and while some participation in brewing by oneself, along with some assistance, is a popular pastime now, I think there was a feeling out there, by most people, that you needed a regulatory regime in which everyone would have to meet certain rules and regulations, that they had certain obligations they had to meet.

One of the things we always worry about, of course, is the quality control of product. Second, and probably even more important than quality control, is the health control of it.

My friend from Etobicoke-Humber smiles at the quality control end of things and that sometimes varies, I think, in these exercises. But we all want to ensure that the necessary health obligations are met by those who are participating and that's why we'll be supporting them member's intention.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I too support this legislation. I'm pleased to see it brought forward. I think the rationale for it was very ably laid out by my colleague from Hamilton West.

What we are attempting to do with this legislation is to bring some discipline to bear into the world of the brew-it-yourself or ferment-it-yourself hobbyist field.

Right now there exists a great number of these operations which operate within the spirit and the detail of the law. But we know that there are some that do everything they can to skirt the existing regulations and to skirt the spirit of the law to the point where they have just become, as my colleague has suggested, in effect, alternative mini-breweries or mini-wineries, evading the need to support the taxes that ordinarily apply to such operations, but not involving the actual participation of the consumer.

The whole point of a brew-it-yourself operation or a ferment-it-yourself operation is to provide for the hobbyist, the central idea being that the consumer participates in the process of producing the product. One that I know that operates entirely legitimately and ethically within my riding is Fermentations, operated by Charles Fajgenbaum on Pape Avenue, just north of the Danforth. He is a model of how it should be done correctly. His operation will not be affected by this legislation because what he does already conforms to the model that this legislation contemplates.

But what this legislation will do, if it's passed, is put some constraints on others who are operating outside that spirit and cause them to bring their operations into line with what we all understand to be the appropriate purpose of -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and comments? Member for Hamilton West, you may sum up.

Mrs Ross: I only want to thank the members for St Catharines and York East for their support of this legislation. It is an important piece of legislation to address the issue of what the member for St Catharines has said has become a popular pastime across the province of Ontario.

1540

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bradley: I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough North and the member for Oakwood on this bill this afternoon; we'll be offering some remarks.

I want to say, first of all, I think everybody in the House agrees that there should be some regulations and legislation which protects people, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of the quality of the product that is produced but also the health aspect of it. As it notes in the explanatory notes the bill amends the Liquor License Act to establish a licensing scheme for the brew-on-premise sector of the beer and wine industry.

The new section 5.1 proposes that operators of brew-on-premise facilities who provide equipment for individuals to make their own beer or wine on the premises must be licensed. Existing provisions of the Act are amended and new provisions that parallel existing provisions are proposed to cover these licensees.

It makes sense that when you are producing a product that people are going to consume, that there be some quality control - that there be some regulation. I know from time to time, particularly among members of this government, there's a reluctance to have regulatory frameworks and there's been an exercise headed up by the member for Lincoln to eliminate what he calls "red tape". People could accuse the government of establishing more red tape. In this case, I don't think that would be fair because it's the kind of regulation, the kind of licensing which is there to protect the public. After all, that's what most regulations are there for: to protect the public good.

The wine industry would be among those who would agree with this particular piece of legislation. The wine industry has an interesting history and a number of initiatives which have been successful over the years. If we look at the wine industry now in this province and compare it to what it would have been 15 years ago, it has come a long way. There was a time when people used to turn their noses up, unjustifiably so, even in those days, at Ontario wines. If you were on an air flight and you asked for an Ontario wine or a Canadian wine, the wine steward would look at you as though you had asked for turpentine.

While there may have been some wines many years ago that were not of the highest quality, that has disappeared today as Ontario takes its place in the forefront of wine producing right around the world. That's why the Ontario Wine Council is interested in this legislation. I'm sure the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board is as well.

The grape and wine industry has grown because of the hard work of those who are members of the grape growers marketing board and the farmers who produce the product. Also, of course, the wineries who process and produce the final product, which is wine. There is some grape juice which is produced as well. Again, a popular product in many places.

If we look back a number of years ago, the kind of grapes we were growing at that time led to a certain quality of wine and a certain kind of wine being produced. It turned out that while it was popular with some, with many people it was not popular. There was a movement afoot to change the kind of grapes here in Ontario. Now we have grapes being grown which are far more conducive to the production of outstanding wines, and that wouldn't have been the case a dozen years ago or even longer than that.

I want to say that the difficulties experienced by the grape and wine industry were rather substantial. In the late 1980s, we had the free trade agreement being imposed on us, the free trade agreement signed with I think it was the government of Ronald Reagan and the government of Brian Mulroney nationally. At that time there was a good deal of fear and, I thought, justified, that our grape and wine industry might be in some considerable trouble. Many of the people who were facing this challenge decided to rise up to meet the challenge. They didn't do so alone. What I was pleased about was that in the late 1980s the government of the day was able to provide some substantial assistance financially for what we call the pull-out program, where grapes that were not conducive to producing the kind of wines that would easily sell were removed and we saw some replanting with other grapes which are popular in terms of the wines that were made from them.

This was a substantial investment on the part of the government of Ontario. I can assure members of the House that it was not easy trying to extract from the Treasurer of the day, because this is true of all finance ministers, the kind of funding that I believed was necessary and my colleagues in that government - Premier Peterson and others - felt was necessary to be able to see a viable wine-producing industry in the province of Ontario. So when we look at this we can understand why the Ontario Wine Council and wine producers would be in favour of this particular piece of legislation.

I want to say as well that there were some moves that were made that were helpful. We had a number of large wineries - not a large number, but we had a number of large wineries around - which produced table wines and which marketed their product through the LCBO and sometimes directly. But they were fairly few in number. Today we have a large number of what we call cottage wineries which have sprung up around the Niagara Peninsula and in southwestern Ontario and attract people to visit the Niagara Peninsula.

A lot of people from the Metro Toronto area, the GTA, now visit the Niagara Peninsula, as do our American friends, to visit the wineries, perhaps have a tour of the winery and perhaps the vineyard, and to taste some of the product that is there and ultimately - this is where the money comes in, of course - to make the purchases.

It's hard to believe that at one time you could not use a credit card for those purposes. Particularly our American friends would come here, they would want to buy a quantity of the wine, most of the time to have with a meal - it wasn't as though they were going to sit out in the car and consume it at that time, obviously. They were going to have it with a meal. It was a good product. It was part of the food at the table. As a result, there was a regulatory change which allowed for the use of credit cards for the purpose of making purchases of wine at the various wineries and their sales, as a result, increased, mostly from the people who are tourists who visited the area to purchase.

Another was that on Sunday there was a provision that wineries, because they're part of the tourist industry - at that time we didn't have widespread Sunday openings - were permitted to open because, again, tourists came at that particular period of time. Just as you had farm markets that were open at that time before the big stores were allowed to open, you had then a movement to allow the wineries to be open. So we've been substantially successful but we have to be careful.

Just as we need legislation of this kind to ensure quality out there, we also need to make sure that we preserve our farmland in the Niagara region and other places. I am deeply worried, particularly after the changes to the Planning Act. Planning Act changes had been passed by the previous NDP government and significant changes and planning provisions were made by the subsequent government. Now I see the potential of an assault on farmland in the Niagara region and the loss of that farmland and that's going to have an impact on the grape and wine industry.

In my own city, where we have urban boundaries established, a developer has now come in dangling a proposal for development outside of the boundaries. What you have to watch for in this regard is that the developer buys up the land, which is farmland, and then doesn't farm it and then we have what I call crackpot realism. I was accused in the St Catharines Standard of attacking crackpot realists - somehow one of the columnists thought I was referring to him; I don't know why - over the hospital restructuring proposal that was made in the Niagara Peninsula.

I see the same thing here. They look at the land and they say it's not being used for purposes of agriculture. Maybe they'll let some people in to use the farmhouse or something and have wild parties there and hope the neighbours will say, "Look, we want to be rid of all this stuff" when in fact we need that land - and I think this transcends where you live in the province. If you ask people in the Toronto area, the GTA, what are some of the attractions in the Niagara Peninsula, they're going to say: "We want to purchase the wine that's produced. It's outstanding-quality wine. We also like to travel through large tracts of rural land.

I can tell members of the House that there is now a proposal on the Niagara Escarpment, a wonderful winery there - first of all, there are lovely vineyards and there's a lovely restaurant there, which is outstanding in terms of its quality. It's beautiful. People can drive into it. They have a tour of the winery. They can go to the restaurant and look out over the vineyard.

1550

However, now there's a proposal that we have to have a culinary school, a cooking school, and also some condominiums. If this is approved by this government - and when I look at the makeup of the Niagara Escarpment Commission today as compared to five years ago, there may be a few people much more sympathetic to that kind of proposal than before. What I'm saying to you is, if you want to preserve what is good there, and I thought Conservatives were about conserving what is good - remember the commercials they had at one time?

That reminds me, I wondered how I was going to get on to government advertising. I'll divert my attention to that for a moment. They had a jingle before over energy that said: "Life is good, Ontario. Preserve it, conserve it." I thought there might have been a political connotation to that. The government of the day said there wasn't, but I thought there was a political connotation to it. But I digress from the topic.

What I want to see is the preservation of these agricultural lands. I think everything we do to preserve our wine industry and our grape growers and other tender fruit growers and vegetable growers is good. That's one of the reasons I support this piece of legislation before us this afternoon.

The wineries, however, cannot do it on their own. Our grape growers and our wineries face unfair competition from abroad. I think it's safe to say in this House, indeed outside of this House, that there are subsidies under the table in many other countries. I'm told by our growers and by our producers that some European countries and other places in the world subsidize their grape growers and their wine industry. Everybody talked about a level playing field when Brian Mulroney set up the free trade agreement and then we had NAFTA after that. What we were looking for was something fair out of that. It was going to be a difficult adjustment, everybody knew that, but we still have the Europeans doing things which give them an advantage.

Here in Ontario we stock European wines on our shelves. We store them, we transport them, we really look after them well. I wonder if the same happens in France, for instance, which claims to be a great producing area for wine. The answer is no, so we need - I want to commend the government again. You're going to be surprised by this, Madam Speaker. I'm going to praise the government this afternoon. The government did a full retreat - sound the bugles of retreat over there - on the LCBO. There were people out there rubbing their hands, wondering how the local Tories could get their hands on these new stores the way they did in Alberta. The government looked. I read petitions in the House - I'm sure that influenced them - petitions I was getting from right across the province on this. I met with the LCBO union, addressed the union at that time along with the third party representative. I give them the credit, actually, the employees.

And I want to give my friend Andy Brandt some credit. Andy is a former Progressive Conservative member, back when it was the Progressive Conservative Party and Andy was the leader. He subsequently was appointed as chair of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and I want to say in this House that I think Andy Brandt has done a good job. He would be appointed by any government. The NDP agrees with him, the Conservatives agree with him and the Liberals agree with him. He's a promoter. He's interested in it. He's taken an interest in Ontario wines. He showed some considerable leadership.

The employees certainly made a good case. They even got into some advertising, but they didn't use taxpayers' dollars, they used their own dollars to advertise why it was good to preserve the LCBO. Ultimately, the government appears to have made a decision, at least in this term - I don't know if I would trust them if they got another term - they agreed to forego the opportunity to privatize the LCBO. I want to commend the government on agreeing with those of us in the Liberal Party who have advocated that and changing their policy, because that certainly is something they should be commended for. Every time you adopt a policy that we advance out there, I think it's good for you and I give you full credit for that.

I want to say as well that the wine industry always has challenges to meet. Our federal government has to be ever vigilant that there aren't unfair trade practices which adversely impact our grape growers and our wineries. I'm sure that would be the case. Provincially, we want to ensure that when you have our product in the LCBO that it's featured there; it's not just the latest French product, but our product is prominently displayed. I want to see if there's some financial assistance that can be provided to our industry as it grows and expands. That's good.

Let me tell you something about government advertising, the kind of government advertising I agree with. This is where I think there is a misimpression. The kind I agree with is when the government promotes Ontario product. I've seen some of the ads from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which encourage people to purchase our product. Nothing wrong with that. I'll be the first in the House to stand to support that. I won't the support self-serving, blatantly partisan political ads we see on education, municipal affairs, when the Premier was in the arena with his hockey jacket on, and on health care, their newest $4-million ad campaign, which is more, by the way, than a political party would be allowed to spend in an entire election campaign, even under the new rules, on advertising.

If you want to advertise without the Premier's photograph, without the political connotations to it - if you want to say, "Our product in Ontario is good," and you want to promote that in Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, South America, the United States, then good for you. I'll be there side by side with you to support that. I will not, however, support the kind of self-serving ads that we saw the Brantford Expositor editorial today criticized. That can't be a Conrad Black paper, can it, the Brantford Expositor? Does anybody know that? I'm wondering because we don't seem to see much criticism of those kinds of policies in the Black press.

Anyway, there are some issues still there along with this issue. I want to first of all say that all of us in the House agree with addressing the issue that's addressed in this bill, but there is the direct delivery from wineries to the various bars and restaurants which would be very advantageous. My understanding is that almost everywhere else, a winery such as the cottage wineries, you might say, in the Niagara Peninsula or down in southwestern Ontario, are allowed to deliver their product directly to restaurants and bars. Who loses out on that? Mike Harris loses out in terms of some funds. In other words, the government of Ontario, whoever it happens to be, loses out on some funds because there's a tax, an LCBO charge in there, but it would certainly help our wineries considerably if that were removed.

I'm going to suggest that in the next budget. If in the next budget that is applied, when it's announced - you know how the government members have on their copy of the budget, "Clap here," and they all clap, especially the ones who are aspiring to be in the cabinet. If you're already in the cabinet, you don't have to clap unless you're in danger, but those who are aspiring. Janet doesn't have to clap loudly now because she's in the cabinet so she doesn't have to worry, and the chief government whip now has cabinet status. Do you get a limo with that or not?

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate that. What I'm saying is I, in opposition, if you announce in the next budget that you're going to allow that, will be the one leading the applause at that time. Being the non-partisan, open-minded, objective individual that I am, I will lead the applause for that.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Actually, I'm looking for the next speaker, if the truth be known.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The people at home should know that one of the Conservatives - I won't name him because he'll be embarrassed by this - said, "So are we," over there, looking for the next speaker.

1600

Let me tell you that the wine industry has a number of issues it wishes to raise with the government, but I think that allowing direct sales from the cottage winery to the bar or restaurant would really be helpful. It would save them a lot of money. I think all parties would probably agree to that. My colleagues over on the other side have listened and perhaps we'll see it in the budget. As I say, I'll be able to lead the applause at that time on that part of the budget, but there may be other parts of the budget with which I'm not in full agreement.

More material has come in. This is even helpful now.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I actually like my notes better than what I see here.

I can tell you that one of the other problems that exists in terms of the production of wine is that in some places bars or restaurants make what they call a house wine. That may be popular to a certain extent. The problem with that is there aren't health controls and quality controls in there. The wine industry worries about that because, for instance, when visitors come to Canada and consume the wine, they want to have high-quality wine available, a Vintners Quality Alliance, VQA, wine. I think it's good to have that designation.

By the way, I think there's some legislation we could use to have that appellation made official here in Ontario. That may be a piece of legislation that may be forthcoming a little later on. I know my friend the government whip, who enjoys coming to the Niagara Peninsula, not only to watch rowing on the famous rowing course when his son was involved in rowing but also to purchase some product from the various wineries in our area, would agree with that, I'm sure. In fact we should have in legislation a designation, an appellation that you have there called Vintners Quality Alliance. That would get some of the Europeans off our back who try to say, "You don't really have any official designation." So we'll be looking for that in subsequent bills.

We have some proposals that have been forthcoming and I think we should all listen to them. You, Madam Speaker, had the privilege of being the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations at one time in this province so you would agree, I think, that some legislation and some regulatory changes that would help the wine industry would benefit all of us.

What you would lose initially on the markup that the LCBO gets on the wine that would go directly to the bars or restaurants you would pick up as that volume picked up, I'm sure.

What I'm pleased to see is some of the Toronto restaurants, which early on seemed to be reluctant to list Ontario wines, now listing those wines. Heaven forbid, it's great to see Air Canada now with some Canadian wines on it. As I say, years ago, if you asked for a Canadian wine, the steward looked at you and said, "Did you say turpentine?" It was just so snobbish. "Why would you want that?" And I would say: "Because I like it. It tastes good." It's not just patriotism involved; it tastes good. That's why we're making those inroads into the sophisticated restaurants of Toronto now, because people are recognizing we have a high-quality product.

Now when you have a blind test, that is, people do not see the label on it when the wine is poured for them - it used to be they'd always pick the French wine - "Oh, this is good; this is top-notch wine" - because they could see the label. Now you don't put the label on in a blind test and you find out that Ontario wines, and Canadian wines, in fact, but I'll be parochial enough to say Ontario wines, are picked by many people as their wine of choice. That speaks well of people like Don Ziraldo, who has headed the charge in terms of our exports out there, and others in the wine industry, all the wine industry, who have done a good job.

I saw an editorial in a newspaper. I can't read what newspaper it is but it is a newspaper. It looks like it's by Peter Ward and it says, "Our Ridiculous Liquor Board." Actually, I was complimenting it a minute ago. Let me share with you what it says and maybe we can learn from this.

"It's rather curious that all Ontario wineries complain about an LCBO policy yet they're reluctant to go public, apparently because they don't want to annoy their government monopoly."

In other words, what this columnist seems to say is that they don't want to annoy the government. That reminds me of hospital closings, for instance, that people who are facing impending hospital closings in their area, the cat has their tongue, you know, of the people who are administrators and so on, because they think if they don't say anything maybe their hospital won't be closed or cut back in the services it provides. It reminds me of the Ontario taxpayers' coalition and the National Citizens' Coalition, the cat having their tongue on government advertising.

You probably noted that as well, Madam Speaker. I always admired them. The taxpayers' coalition and the National Citizens' Coalition were always first and foremost - you remember when you were in government - to criticize governments for squandering money on various things. I think they must be away from the province or something, or maybe they're at a convention, because they haven't noticed the Ontario government blowing all kinds of money on self-serving, blatantly political advertising. I expect a press conference is surely going to be held next week at the Ontario Legislature complaining about this advertising. My friend Doug Ford is going to call them up immediately and say, "Let's have it," and they'll look at the nature of the ads.

A lot of Conservative members now, not members of the Parliament, because I expect you have to support government policy, so I don't expect you to come out and denounce it, but I'm having Conservative friends of mine in the Niagara region come up to me and say: "Boy, you know, they're really overkilling with this advertising, aren't they? We're going to be getting some criticism for this." I said: "You know, you've got to speak to Guy Giorno, because I'm sure that your members agree, but they don't have much power. You have to speak to the powers that be, and that's the whiz kids."

Tom Long is probably advising them. I saw him in the building the other day. I've seen him twice in the last two weeks. I congratulated him, first of all, on the quarter-of-a-million-dollar contract he got as a head-hunter trying to find the top person at Hydro. I congratulated him on that. I congratulated him on being around the building and so influential with this government. So I would say they should speak to Tom Long in this regard. I'm digressing, and I shouldn't. You've been very tolerant, Madam Speaker.

I want to go back to the editorial, or at least the column that I'm reading here. It goes on to say: "You see, LCBO coffers are swelled each year by millions of dollars because our provincial monopoly exacts a markup on wines that it never touches or ever sees. Rules allow individual wineries to deliver wines straight to a restaurant, but then the winery must pay the LCBO markup on each bottle."

Now, let's get that right. The winery takes the wine to the restaurant, say, in Toronto here, for the cost of transportation, and they get to do it but they have to hand some money to the LCBO for the markup. I guess what most of us are saying in the Niagara region at least is, "Let's get rid of that particular markup that's there and let the wineries sell direct without that markup."

It's so ridiculous that Hillebrand's Vineyard Café, actually attached to the winery, has to pay the LCBO markup on each bottle served to diners sitting right next to the wine cellar. The same is true for Cave Spring Cellars, where the On The Twenty Restaurant and Wine Bar is virtually part of the winery.

"The LCBO markup on Ontario wines is a hefty," get this, "66% of the price after federal and provincial alcohol taxes are calculated. PST and GST apply after the markup has been added." So there's one thing we can withdraw from it, and that'll help everything, and I'm not saying that your PST and GST have to be taken off products; I'm saying it would lower the take for the GST and the PST if we took away that markup.

Wines available at small wineries sell for the sale price they would cost if they were carried by the LCBO, but in that case the wineries get to keep the markup. The wineries also keep the markup when they sell through company stores like the Vincor store on Metcalfe Street or the Chateau des Charmes store in Minto Place."

It's a long column, and I don't want to go into the whole column, but it really points out the amount of money we're talking about and how we can help our wineries, just as I think this bill will be of some considerable help.

1610

I have some more information here on you-brews. What we're looking for with the you-brew legislation - I think the member alluded to this - is fair and equitable tax treatment comparable to Ontario's agriculturally based grape and wine industry. That's what we want to see as a goal.

I mentioned direct sales of 100% Ontario wines to licensees without the LCBO markups. By the way, the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board would tell all of us who are representatives, particularly those of us in the local area, that that alone would create 200 front-line marketing jobs. At the Premier's dog-and-pony show the other day in St Catharines, the non-partisan event held on the eve of the provincial election, with my good friend Al Leach there - he would agree with me that some people might have drawn the conclusion that it was partisan and had something to do with the election, not Al but some other people.

Anyway, John Neufeld, on behalf of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board, spoke at that particular conference - I was in attendance to keep an eye on the Premier and others, of course - and he said at that time 200 front-line jobs in marketing could be created by the direct sale from the winery to the restaurant or bar.

"It's time for this province to have a total overhaul of its policies towards retailing of wines in particular. We import millions of gallons of wines from countries which go to great lengths to restrict the opportunities for our wines to get into their markets.

"We allow wines with heavy subsidy backing in without penalty. The European Union is raising its wine subsidy yet again...now it will be running at between $1.50 and $2 for every bottle of wine they ship into Ontario. The LCBO has become an expensive retailing network for wines, with a wide range of special charges for good positions on shelves in their outlets."

I would hope that our own people would be able to get a break on good positions in the LCBO stores.

"Foreign suppliers have deeper pockets, thanks to subsidies and export support programs. Here in Ontario we have an agriculturally based grape and wine industry, which is generating thousands of jobs."

I can say that I am delighted to see that happening. There have been some articles written about this that I think are rather useful. I have mentioned some of the items that have been brought to our attention.

Yesterday and the day before in the legislative dining room, they were endeavouring to select a dining room Ontario Legislature wine, because the public are permitted to come in and enjoy the food and beverages that are available in the dining room here and in our cafeteria.

I think we should listen to the recommendations that are made by both the wine industry and the grape growers of this province:

"To provide new impetus for growth for the industry's premium wines at a time when sales were beginning to flatten out" - just a bit, in what you call a mature market.

"To make it possible for wineries to dedicate the time needed to build licensee loyalty and thereby expose more restaurant patrons to Ontario wines.

"To provide a new sales channel for the entire domestic industry at the same time as foreign wines were benefiting from the advent of Sunday shopping at the LCBO, and to provide a buffer against the domestic market share loss that the industry believed would accompany Sunday openings" of the LCBO.

"To help ensure the ongoing health of the domestic grape and wine industry at a time when a major advantage (exclusive Sunday shopping) was being lost and European wine subsidies were on the increase.

"To recognize that, in light of the current trade environment, the federal and provincial governments cannot ensure open access to foreign markets for our domestic wine industry and therefore new opportunities must be created in our home market if our industry is to build on its success and remain healthy.

"To ensure that Ontario wineries enjoy the same opportunities as their competitors do in their home markets.

"To make it more economically viable to operate an estate winery in Ontario, thereby encouraging more winery development in Niagara and southwestern Ontario."

This is a discussion paper that has been put out that I think is helpful to all of us who are elected representatives.

"Following successful tests the year before, the government authorized the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to open on Sundays in 1998. At the time, the LCBO claimed that the effect of this change on the domestic wine industry would be relatively neutral, because wineries without retail stores would gain sales volume and those with retail stores would see their customers continue to purchase their products in their stores or in the LCBO. The domestic wine industry predicted a much more negative outcome for overall Ontario wine sales. Recognizing that a number of Ontario wineries would benefit from this change and that Sunday shopping at the LCBO was an opportunity that the government could not refuse forever, the Wine Council of Ontario chose not to fight this change. Rather, after many industry meetings to discuss alternatives, the WCO provided the government and the LCBO with a proposal to allow for the direct delivery of VQA wines to licensees without incurring LCBO markups."

That's the background to this. Let me give you an example in British Columbia.

"The example of British Columbia suggests that direct delivery to licensees without paying markups does strengthen the domestic industry and increase its penetration into licensed establishments. Today, there are as many wineries in British Columbia as there are in Ontario, in spite of the fact that BC has only one tenth of the acreage under cultivation that the Ontario grape and wine industry has.

"The right of delivering directly to licensees was initially granted only to estate and farm gate producers for 100% BC wines, but to ensure industry fairness, that policy has been changed to allow for the direct delivery of all VQA wines by domestic wineries, whatever their size.

"Wineries in all of the major wine-producing states in the United States wholesale their products to licensees, including California, Washington, Oregon and New York state.

"Currently, wineries can deliver wine directly to restaurants, but must pay all applicable taxes and the LCBO markup. Wineries are paid $1.41 delivery charge by the LCBO. Most licensee sales are to the Toronto area, where mileage from Niagara is 235 km. Calculated at 32 cents a kilometre, this means that the winery is paying $75.20 for each Toronto delivery. Thus, the winery subsidizes the LCBO in order to deliver to the restaurant. Charges from southwestern Ontario are much higher.

"More importantly, the winery loses a profit margin that it could use to increase the amount of time spent with each restaurant training staff, developing an Ontario wine list and generally building the kind of licensee loyalty that the British Columbia wine industry relies upon today.

"As well, small wineries find that delivering directly to restaurants is a losing proposition. For example, one of our small wineries recently calculated their costs" and as they come out, end up with a profit before overheads at the winery of 59 cents. It wasn't really that practical.

I want to say that we will be supporting this. I may have colleagues joining me to complete the remarks this afternoon.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You can always count on the NDP.

1620

Mr Bradley: It may be the NDP who will be doing so.

I want once again to say how important it is to ensure that we have this land to produce the grapes. If we are going to pave everything from Toronto to Fort Erie, and if there are those whose dream will be realized only when every last square centimetre is paved and developed, then we won't have that. I think what we have today is worth preserving. Don Ziraldo has made a proposal. He's from Inniskillin Wines and is certainly one of the leading lights in the wine industry. He has proposed now that there be - and the Minister of Transportation is here to hear this - a mid-peninsula corridor, a road, a significant highway that would go through the southern part and the central part of the Niagara Peninsula to take pressure for development off those lands which are near the QEW. Highway 20, as the member suggests, probably would be a sensible route to follow. Perhaps the truck traffic and others could go there.

What I would like to see as well, with the Minister of Transportation here, is not the sign on the highway with the Premier's name that says, "Your Ontario tax dollars at work; Mike Harris, Premier," similar to some Republican Governor in the United States. Where it says, "Governor So-and-so," it would say, "Governor Harris, State of New Jersey," or something like that. Not that; that's not what I want to see. What I want to see is more public transportation available to the Niagara Peninsula. That will be a combination, in my view, of a federal and provincial government working together. We have the Via line there; I think we could have some enhanced Via service. We could see some GO Transit service coming to the Niagara Peninsula which would allow for less traffic on the highway. We have some transportation across the lake now. It's in its preliminary stages, let me put it that way, at this point in time. It also has a difficult time operating in winter, obviously.

Enhanced services for rail would be outstanding to see. I'll look forward to the government making a proposal in that regard, that we have that kind of GO Transit, or if we call it Government of Ontario transit or commuter transit, available to people in our area. While I'm not a proponent of more and more highways in the province, as I'm sure the minister isn't - he wants a variety of options open - I think the mid-peninsula corridor would take the pressure off some of the fruit lands that we see there.

Make no mistake about it; there are people lying in wait ready to pave over the peninsula farmland. That would be unfortunate for two reasons, maybe more than two, but we have two unique characteristics: (1) largely soils which are very conducive to producing tender fruit, including grapes; and (2) a very favourable climate. I learned in my grade 13 geography class that the number of growing days, on average, on top of the escarpment is 27 days fewer than below the escarpment - this is as you go along the Niagara Peninsula near St Catharines, so Hamilton to Niagara Falls - that on top of the escarpment, on average, they get 27 fewer frost-free days. So you have that combination there.

Plus, we have some outstanding farmers in the Niagara region who over the years sometimes have passed down - my friend the member for St Catharines-Brock farms and he would know and have many friends in the farming community who do an outstanding job in producing the product. We need support for that product. Those who have been involved in farming practices know that we have to be prepared to pay a decent price to the producer if we're going to ensure that we're preserving the agricultural land. We can't simply say to the producer, "You must stay on this land under all circumstances, and we're not prepared to pay you the amount of money you should get for your product or help you indirectly in some other way if you were to stay on the land."

I know I have the Minister of Agriculture's support in this regard when I say that he would want great caution shown in severances being allowed, because now there's a movement for what are called economic severances. Do I blame the people for asking for them? No, I don't, but as soon as you allow these severances and as soon as you allow urban people to move out into agricultural land areas, then you get complaints, because many of the people who move out to enjoy the countryside don't appreciate the odours, don't appreciate some of the noise, don't appreciate some of the dust and some of the other farm practices which are normal farm practices. So it's important that we not willy-nilly grant severances to people just because they happen to know somebody in the right place to be able to get that severance. That's where I think the Minister of Agriculture would agree with me.

In fact, many people belonging to the federation of agriculture and the Christian Farmers in the province would agree that you have to have strict control over those severances. Mr Chudleigh is quite correct in saying that fruit and vegetable growers most assuredly are supportive of a very restrictive policy, because out in the farmland they don't want people who simply come out to enjoy the country and then start complaining about what's happening around them. They're justified in being concerned about that.

I have just about exhausted all of the arguments I can muster on this particular piece of legislation. I don't want to repeat myself, obviously. No further notes have come in. No other issues have to be canvassed. I can tell you that tonight I'll say that a Hotel Dieu doctor fears a dialysis crisis, but I will get on that tonight, because that's another opportunity. This afternoon, as always, I want to stay as closely as possible to the piece of legislation that is before the House.

I say to my friend the parliamentary assistant and to the government, "Well done, today." Take those compliments. They're few and far between. I don't want to read in the government whip's next brochure during election campaign, "`Good for you': Jim Bradley." I don't want to see it taken out of context.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Would I do a thing like that?

Mr Bradley: Yes.

They often ask us - you would know this, Madam Speaker, and all members - "Why don't all of you people in the House work together?"

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Yes, like a family.

Mr Bradley: Like a family, right. "Why don't you praise the government once in a while?" I always say, "There are two reasons why opposition members don't praise the government. The first reason is they have 82 members there, all with a third hand growing out to pat themselves on the back." So that's the government's due. They have their own members to do so.

Second, they're liable to read it somewhere. I remember my friend Peter Kormos during, I think, the last election campaign. No, it was probably 1990. When I was a minister I answered a question in the House and I said, "I appreciate the member drawing this to the attention of the House, as he usually does in an excellent fashion." The Liberal candidate in the next election brought me the pamphlet where I had been quoted as saying that. It has made me reticent to be too effusive in my compliments to the government from time to time.

But I want to say on this bill, we have a consensus in this House. If your government brings forward a provision to allow for direct sales from the wineries directly to the restaurants, you'll have my applause and support for that. If you preserve our agricultural land so we can produce these, that will be good.

I think you're not wrong, even though there have been times when people on your own benches have said, "Make sure you don't overregulate." I think you are quite appropriate in regulating in this case, and I think enlightened people in the brew pub industry have said, "We're prepared to accept that kind of licensing and regulation." There are a few people who don't like it, but I think the enlightened people who want to see a viable brew pub industry, something that's a hobby for people, want to see it operate well. They understand there has to be licensing, just as we have licensing for cars.

There are some members on the government side, with the opposition's support, who want to see some licensing moving into watercraft of some kind. It's not to be mean to anybody. It's not to be overly restrictive. It's to provide some rules within which all of us must work. That's all the wineries have asked for, and that's all others have asked for.

1630

The clock seems to show a lot more time now. I thought they had added an hour on to my time this afternoon, but it hasn't happened. I look forward to responses from members of the opposition. I'm going to show you that just because you give me an hour doesn't mean I'm going to take an hour to give a speech in this House. You know how I said that sometimes you should allow 90 minutes for a late speech, other times half an hour. Some members opposite will be saying there may be a provision sometimes for 10 minutes and they may want to invoke that.

I will conclude my remarks and say we will be supporting this bill. I don't anticipate a debate on third reading unless of course the government does something to annoy the opposition, which I know they're not going to do, but I don't anticipate third reading.

One thing I would ask you is, when you pass this bill, if you do any advertising, that it not be of the self-serving, self-congratulatory, partisan advertising that we see with these health care ads and education ads at this time. If you do that, I'll be absolutely delighted.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate? The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I want to take this opportunity to make a few remarks. They won't be as long as the member from St Catharines' because he's got an interest in this. The stake is bigger. He's from St Catharines, in an area of Niagara where the wine grows. I have some affection for those arguments, first, because I have a cousin in St Catharines and, second, because of my connection to wine. I'm very fond of wine, as some of the members who have travelled with me in committee know. I like good wine. We have some good wines in the area of Niagara that I'm very proud of and we want to protect the industry as best we can.

I want to say that this is a bill that is obviously a good one. It's a bill that deals with small business in general, and I'm connected as you know to that sector as well. I was the chair of the Fort York Small Business Association for many, many years. They have had many concerns with old governments. In fact, I ushered in many changes they had recommended and offered them to the former minister in the New Democratic Party government. They listened to many of the suggestions they had made.

I say that small business is the heart of our communities everywhere and this bill addresses many of their concerns. This bill amends the Liquor Licence Act to establish a licensing scheme for the brew-on-premises sector of the beer and wine industry, and that is a good thing. It's timely. I say that the you-brews have a shared interest in a more level playing field. They've been calling for that now, obviously. They want it and we support it. They have seen a marked increase in recent years of brew-on-premises facilities opening in Ontario and, also, I might add, an increase in the number of facilities that are not following the existing rules. So clearly they want the same playing field that should apply to everybody equally. Who could disagree with that?

In this regard - and I tell you, it's not often that we agree with this government. Like the member for St Catharines, I too meet a lot of people who say to me, "You've got to find some things that you can agree with, otherwise the public" - meaning those who are listening to you - "are going to dismiss you as constantly criticizing and being critical of this government." I told them, "I would like to do that but it is such a rare opportunity that we are given to agree with this government on anything they have done." So here is one opportunity. I'm happy to say there is a bill, Bill 57, that I agree with. That's a good thing. So I praise you for that.

But I want to move on to the contradictions, if I can. I need to, because how could you not, as a critic, get to those other matters of interest to the public? In this particular area of you-brews, you folks said: "We need regulation, right? That's a good thing." Yet this is the same Tory government that said: "We have too many regulations. We've got to get rid of all these regulations. It's simply counterproductive. Business hates it. They can't produce the jobs they want because governments are getting constantly in their way by the introduction of more and more regulation." So I find it very strange that you would introduce regulations that counter your usual argument about eliminating them. Frankly, I find this contradictory. I'm not sure how some of you feel. I am convinced the public watching will find it contradictory that you should at once call for regulations and at the same moment say you want to get rid of regulations. I find it odd.

Getting to another matter, as briefly as I can, because I know that we want to move on to other issues, we have in the books now an act to deal with franchisees. I know my colleague Tony Martin from Sault Ste Marie supports the bill that you have just introduced here that we're dealing with, but also has been very critical of you on that bill dealing with franchisees, because as much as you've gone a long way in dealing with the you-brews in terms of important, essential regulations, when it comes to franchisees, my colleague from Sault Ste Marie is saying you're not going far enough. It is a half measure. It is an incomplete regulation.

We know the stories in this field, and there are many; many franchisees, poor folk, hard-working small business people who are dealt with rather badly by the franchisors. We've known the stories - the stories of gag orders. They are not permitted, for example, to speak about the contracts or any information contained therein with anyone, and if they do they, they're subject to serious litigation. They are forced to buy from the franchisors, often at prices they can't afford. In fact, their prices are higher than other places that they could buy from. Their contracts are one-sided. The franchisor has all the power and the franchisee has no power whatsoever.

We are looking, in the bill that they have introduced, for adequate arbitration measures. We're looking for a dispute mechanism that would help the franchisee to be able to deal with problems they face so that they don't have to go through the court system that is a very costly system. When they have to face the franchisor, who's got all the pecunia in the world versus the small amounts of money they have, how could they take their issue to court when they know it would cost them a fortune to do so?

So what we have is a Bill 57 that is adequate by way of regulation, and we praise them in spite of their contradiction around this. Then, on issues of the franchisees, they introduce a half-measure regulation that doesn't go far enough.

Then we expose them to another problem, and that is the problem of the environment, where this government says, "We don't want any regulation on companies that pollute our society," because they say the companies should, on their own, be vigilant and, on their own, watch themselves and, on their own, monitor their own activity with respect to the environment.

Can you imagine allowing those who are polluting our air and our water, the very things that affect our health, the very scum that is emitted in our water and in our air that is affecting each and every one of us, children, women and men, permitting the company, the private sector, to monitor itself? You can see the contradiction quite clearly.

Bill 57 has adequate regulations. The franchisee act they've introduced is a half measure, half regulation, inadequate, and on the issue of the environment, where we desperately need the intervention of this government, we have nothing. We have a government that is content to do nothing in that area.

1640

Speaker, you nod in agreement, because surely you understand it. It doesn't take a scientist, obviously, to understand the argument. That's why I saw you nod because you privately understand. I know you couldn't say that publicly, but that's why I expose it. You see, Speaker, I praise you and then need to whack you a little bit, because if I don't expose the problems and the contradictions, who will?

On the issue of labour, you've got a lot of problems there. That ministry has been decimated by this government. That ministry has been cut in half. That means that inspectors who normally would be out there checking out work sites -

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): Absolutely wrong.

Mr Marchese: Oh, the Minister of Labour is excitable and excited, quite clearly.

Hon Mr Flaherty: You don't know what you're talking about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dan Newman): Member for Durham Centre.

Mr Marchese: Minister of Labour, you're brilliant. You are the omnipotent one in this place. You're the omniscient member of this Legislature who quite clearly - the minister obviously knows all, he's saying, but he has decimated the Ministry of Labour. M. Harris, the Premier, has done that. He took it over when that dirty deed, that malfeasance had been committed already by his leader. He had to take on a ministry that had already been badly hurt, so he has now got to defend it.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): On a point of order, Speaker: the word "malfeasance," I believe, is not in the parliamentary lexicon. Would you ask the member to withdraw it.

The Acting Speaker: I just want to caution the member for Fort York that he may want to choose a more appropriate word than the word he used.

Mr Marchese: Speaker, I've got to tell you I'm getting awfully nervous about the role of the Speaker; not his advisers - possibly his advisers. I tell you, you guys -

Mr Shea: On a point of order, Speaker: It is also appropriate to remind the member for Fort York that we do not challenge the ruling of the Chair.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, member for High Park-Swansea. Member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I wasn't challenging you, was I, Speaker? I was expressing a concern -

The Acting Speaker: Can we get back to the bill at hand.

Mr Marchese: I was, until he interrupted. I was indicating to you, Speaker, that you have an important role and your advisers have an important role. Each and every time that you stop us from using words that are in my view descriptive of actions that we want to speak to and you sanitize each and every word, then we might as well all go home. Isn't that true, Minister of Housing?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Yep, I'll go home.

Mr Marchese: I think you would agree.

Getting back to the other matter that I was talking about, regulation versus half measures, regulations versus no regulation, I was talking about labour here and I was saying that here is an area where workers demand that you be there and regulate. But you've cut your ministry by half. How can you -

Hon Mr Flaherty: More inspections, more prosecutions. You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Marchese: There's the omnipotent one speaking again. Speaker, the minister may have said something that he may want to correct, do you think?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): It would help a lot if you would address your remarks to me rather than other members. I'd ask you to do that, please.

Mr Marchese: Before you came, Speaker, and when you came, I was addressing my remarks to you and through you. I don't know what you want me to do. I'll do my best to continue to do what I was doing. I want the Minister of Labour to have two minutes at least, if that's appropriate to the whip. I was saying that he is the one who is very omnipotent and omniscient, having all the answers. Therefore I would want to listen to him, and you would too.

To finish that thought on the issue of labour, this is an area where workers want this government to intervene and to be actively involved. It means that if you have fewer inspectors out there in those work sites, we've got problems. I don't have a problem; it's the working man and woman that has to deal with this particular issue day and night in those work sites. They're the ones who will suffer when you have fewer inspectors on the job doing the work they should be doing.

Speaker, I hope that in my 15 minutes or so I have elucidated this matter somewhat for you. We have a government that doesn't want regulation introducing Bill 57, which is a regulation issue, a regulatory bill, contrary to Tory intentions and Tory philosophy, by and large.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): If you're supporting this, you're talking an awful lot.

Mr Marchese: But, Mr Spina, I want to help you. All I'm doing is exposing the contradictions. That is all.

You have a Minister of the Environment, weak, suffering, because they don't have the resources or the dollars to do the proper job. You have said the companies should regulate themselves. I think it's wrong. Families and working people think it's wrong. We are all affected. Our health and our lives are being affected by that. I include labour in that regard. Working people are part of this problem because you are not adequately putting in the people who should be there to regulate the industries.

On the issue of the franchisee bill, it's a half measure. It doesn't regulate adequately to protect small business the way it should.

Mr Speaker, I have praised them and I have whacked them as appropriately as was necessary.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments or questions?

Mr Bradley: I want to commend the member, first of all, on being able to cover all of the arguments in such a short period of time, because I know this bill has a lot of provisions in it that could provoke a rather significant debate. The fact that the member has been able to succinctly cover those issues is very worthwhile.

He also talked about the fact that the Niagara region is well known as a grape-producing and wine-producing area. I certainly will extol the virtues of that area on every occasion possible. You're from southwestern Ontario, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that in southwestern Ontario there are some vintage wines made that are a very high-quality product that should be enjoyed by people across this province.

I want to pay tribute, by the way, to the people who were involved in the consultation on this piece of legislation. It's often hard to get a consensus, and I understand there wasn't a complete and happy consensus on this. There are always going to be some dissidents but, by and large, there appeared to be a good consensus built around this legislation. I think as a result we're going to see a better opportunity to ensure the health aspect of the products that are being produced and I think it will help in the quality of the products being produced at the same time. There is nothing wrong with embarking upon that kind of activity. The member for Fort York has appropriately stated that and I think he should be commended for it.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments or questions? The member for Fort York has two minutes to respond.

Mr Marchese: I just want to thank the member for St Catharines for his contribution.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Ross has moved second reading of Bill 57. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? So be it.

1650

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I move that notwithstanding standing order 6(a), when the House adjourns on Thursday, November 5, 1998, it stand adjourned until Monday, November 23, 1998.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Does the minister care to make a statement?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I would seek unanimous consent to this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Debate.

The Deputy Speaker: I am told that wasn't the request. The member for York Mills has asked for unanimous consent to pass the motion. No? The Chair recognizes the minister from York Mills.

Hon Mr Turnbull: The motion requests that the House not return for one extra week after the normal constituency week in order that all members of the House can have consultation on various bills around the province which is I believe the understanding among all parties that we should have this.

In fact, this is consistent with our government's record in that we have consulted more than any other previous party. Our government has spent some 773 hours on the road conducting public consultation on legislation. By comparison, I would mention that the NDP, when they were the government, spent 645 hours and the Liberals in their five years spent 349 hours.

Some interesting statistics on this are, when we look at the number of sessional days that we have spent in the first three years - and I use the first three years because we've been the government for approximately three years; the Liberals who were in their second term, were the government for three years and the NDP were for five years - so I'm just taking that first three-year period of all of them for comparison.

The present government has sat in the 36th Parliament for some 361 sessional days and has passed 89 bills, which means that it's approximately a quarter of a bill per day. The NDP, in comparison to our 361 days, sat 278 days and passed 143 bills. In other words, a little more than half a bill per sessional day. The Liberals in fact sat 297 sessional days, compared with our 361 days, and passed 183, so also greater than half a bill per sessional day. We have passed a quarter of a bill per sessional day.

I think our record certainly stands on its feet. The average time spent on second reading for our bills has been, in the first session, four hours and 50 minutes, as compared with the NDP, one hour and 28 minutes and the Liberals, one hour and eight minutes. During the second session we have spent five hours and 33 minutes per average bill at second reading; the NDP some three hours and 55 minutes; and the Liberals, one hour and 38 minutes.

In other words, our government has given more debate time for all of our bills, on average, than the two previous governments and we have also spent more time on the road consulting with the people.

I think this is a good move. It signifies that this government wants to listen to the people, wants input and we are, in asking for this motion to go through, asking for the ability to not sit for one week in the House so that we can go on the road. I believe it is the request of the opposition parties that they do wish to go on the road with some of these bills. With those remarks, I will conclude and hope that my friends will see fit to pass this in a timely fashion.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions? Questions and comments? Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yes. Questions and comments.

The Deputy Speaker: No. I'm sorry, I'm passed comments and questions and I am calling for further debate. The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: At first, I thought this would be a very simple motion that could go through in a short period of time. However, the government whip has provoked us in the opposition with his initial remarks.

I want to say that I just saw yet another time allocation motion - another motion to close off debate - appear on my desk. This is always done, I should tell the folks at home, at about five to 5 on a day because they have to file it by 5 o'clock. It's kind of a tradition now.

It used to be they did it because they didn't want the media to know that they were once again filing a closure motion. Now the media don't even cover it anyway. They become so used to the abuse of the rules and standards of this House by Mike Harris and his colleagues that the media don't even cover that any more. In fact, there are some members who have requested - I wouldn't say this myself, of course - that we take the television sets out of the media offices so they'll come down and watch what goes on in the House. The Conservative members are saying that, but that might well happen.

In that week we have after Remembrance Day - and I think it's good that we are home for that constituency week, and all of us will want to have the opportunity to pay tribute to those who have given their lives and who have served on behalf of Canada and its allies during the great wars and other conflicts that have taken place. So it's most appropriate that we have a constituency week during November 11 week and I'm sure all of us will be at the cenotaph and other places paying tribute to those who have laid down their lives on our behalf.

We also have something in this House, I should mention to people who might be watching, that is something to behold, and that is the one time where you can always count on absolutely no partisanship, which is when we have a representative of each of the political parties stand to pay tribute to those who fell in battle and to those who have served in our armed forces. I've heard some excellent speeches over the years from members, most particularly from those who have themselves served. That's more difficult now because the people who have served in the first two wars are generally quite elderly, but there have been those who have served in the Korean conflict and others. That's one time when I really think this House shines with the three members who represent each of the parties speaking on that occasion.

This motion, which is quite flexible, allows me an opportunity to talk about some things which are of concern to me. Members of this House will know that I was extremely concerned when the hospital restructuring commission or, as I call it, the hospital destruction commission, showed up in St Catharines and announced that it wanted to close Hotel Dieu Hospital. Not all of the recommendations that were made by the commission are going to be rejected. In fact, I suspect there will be members of all three parties and people from across the community who would agree with some of the recommendations for investment in a variety of health activities in the Niagara region. But I can tell you that there are thousands upon thousands of people in St Catharines and the surrounding area, throughout the Niagara region and beyond the borders, who will simply not accept the fact that the commission established by Mike Harris has ordered the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

What was interesting was an event I was at in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Hotel Dieu. This was a book that had been published on that occasion. My good friend and colleague Tom Froese read a scroll from the Premier that congratulated Hotel Dieu on the service it had provided to the people of St Catharines and surrounding area for 50 years and wished them well for some time to come. I found that hard to square with Mike Harris's commission recommendation that lights be turned out at Hotel Dieu, that the boots be put to the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph who for so long, not only in our community but other communities, had served by providing us with a hospital.

I can remember seeing a petition with some 60,000 names on it calling for the retention of the Hotel Dieu Hospital as one of our hospitals in St Catharines. When the people from Hotel Dieu ask, "Who is on our side?" I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the board of directors, the board of governors, the medical staff, the non-medical staff, the volunteers, and all those who have been associated with Hotel Dieu, either in the delivery of health care services or in the receipt of those health care services. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them in defending the future operation of Hotel Dieu in the Niagara Peninsula, because it is a first-rate hospital, as are our other hospitals.

1700

In our community we have three hospitals; two of them are active treatment hospitals. St Catharines General Hospital has done a wonderful job for people in our community. I was a patient in that hospital a number of years ago and received good treatment as a result of a hockey accident that I was involved in. I sat on the board of governors of the St Catharines General Hospital, where many significant decisions were made over the years. I have supported it financially and will continue to support St Catharines General Hospital in the outstanding job it does.

We have the Shaver Hospital, which is a chronic care and rehabilitation effort. Many people who have had such things as strokes or other problems have gone there, have been rehabilitated. It's a long and painful process. It has done a good job. I think it should continue to operate, and it will.

But the Hotel Dieu is under the axe, just as it was in Kingston, just as it was in Cornwall. People want to put it out of business, the people in this case being the Health Services Restructuring Commission. People wondered, back when this government was first elected - this would have been late December 1995 and January 1996 - why I so vociferously opposed Bill 26, a massive budget bill which altered, in some way or other, some 47 different acts and statutes of this Legislature.

One of the provisions in that bill, which we in the opposition called the bully bill because it just did so much in one bill, shoved aside so much in one bill, was the establishment of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, which was supposed to go into communities, assess the circumstances and make changes.

The number one mandate in my view, others will disagree, was to cut; in other words, to save money in the system. We had people who engaged in what I call crackpot realism. They looked at what we had and said: "We've got an excellent health care system. It does cost us considerable money. By gosh, we'd better start dismantling it." I was not prepared to engage in that. Those same people today will probably nod in acquiescence at the commission report. The chattering classes, the people who believe they know more than the regular folks in St Catharines, will say: "You know, this kind of makes sense. This is good that we're closing a hospital and trying to consolidate services in another hospital."

I can say, first of all, that already we have problems with our emergency services, where we have to redirect ambulances from one hospital to another because the emergency department of a hospital is overflowing.

We also have specialized service. Today, for instance, I was chatting with a person who is doing it on a non-partisan basis, as a patient advocate. He is a doctor at Hotel Dieu. He deals with the renal dialysis. He looked at the figures. The headline says: "Hotel Dieu Doctor Fears Dialysis Crisis." In effect, what he said was that if you looked at the report, it had some erroneous assumptions that would affect patient care as far as kidney dialysis was concerned. We are going to see, indeed we have seen, a far greater growth in the number of people utilizing dialysis services than the commission contemplates.

The amount of room required is going to expand considerably. Keep in mind, of course, that we have in the Niagara region, per capita, the most elderly population in all of Ontario. That is the most people, per capita, 55 years old and over. You will recognize that as we all get older we are more likely to require medical services, acute care services as well as chronic care services, and that goes for elderly people. There's an assumption out there among some that all you need for your elderly people are chronic care services, that you simply put them in a chronic care nursing home and somehow they will never need acute care services when in fact as all of us get older we are more likely to encounter problems with our physical and mental well-being which will require some acute care intervention.

Dr David Foot, author of Boom, Bust and Echo, a book which examined the demographic framework of Canada, having looked at some of the future trends as a result of looking at our population, said when he came to Brock University, in answer to a student who asked the question, "Dr Foot, if you could give one piece of advice to Mike Harris, looking at the demographic profile of the Niagara region, what would it be?" The member for Scarborough Centre knows what it was. Dr Foot said, "Don't close hospitals. You're going to be opening them up in another 10 years."

I think Dr Foot's recommendation is one that Mike Harris should listen to, particularly in view of the fact that our Premier, when he wasn't Premier but was leader of the Conservative Party alone, during the leaders' debate during the last provincial election campaign, in answer to a question from Robert Fisher of Global News about whether his health care policies would result in the closing of hospitals, said the following: "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you it's not my plan to close hospitals." Mike Harris said that, the Premier of this province.

I hear members going around and the new slogan for them is "On track" or something like that. That's one of the new slogans they gave them at the convention, and they said "Keeping promises," "A promise made, a promise kept." I got a promise from Mike Harris last election campaign that said it was not his plan to close hospitals, but since that time we have seen, according to legislative research, the library, which did some research for our government agencies committee, 40 private or public hospitals have been closed or forced to merge. In St Catharines we have the Hotel Dieu which is recommended to close and the Maplehurst Hospital in Thorold which was told to close. That makes 42. There are 42 promises broken by Mike Harris.

I'm giving him a chance. I'm going to say: "Look, Mike, you've got a chance to redeem yourself. In St Catharines we have the Hotel Dieu Hospital. I know what you said when I asked in the House, Premier Harris, or Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health, or Jim Wilson, previous Minister of Health." They got out the bowl of water and they did an impersonation of Pontius Pilate, washed their hands and said: "Don't ask me about that. That's the Health Services Restructuring Commission."

Interesting, except just yesterday in Thunder Bay the Premier and the health minister were up undoing the Health Services Restructuring Commission report, changing the report, tampering with the report, altering the report, and I'm prepared to applaud that, because I didn't like the report. It didn't make sense. No longer can the Premier or the Minister of Health or the previous Minister of Health or the Minister of Long-Term Care hide behind the commission. As we get closer to the election, the commission can be much more political now.

1710

Another question outside of Hotel Dieu evolved in the Niagara region, and that was the assumption of debt. Some of the hospitals are annoyed that they're going to have to assume the debt of other hospitals. I know my friend from Lincoln mentioned that at the meeting.

By the way, I should tell you, speaking of the meeting or the announcement, my friend from Scarborough Centre would be interested in this because, if not a crime commissioner, he would like to be a crime commissioner. I arrived at the Howard Johnson Hotel in St Catharines to hear the report of the commission. I said before it was like Darth Vader showing up in the community. I was hoping that they weren't there to slam the door shut on any one of our hospitals.

I arrived there and I went to where the news media was getting its briefing and the questions were being directed. These are people who have studied the issues, have asked the questions, have immersed themselves in issues related to health care in the community. They had a guard at the door. I got my foot in the door, I tried to pry it open, had an argument with the - I won't say "thug" because that would be unparliamentary and unfair; I'll say with the individual who was in charge of keeping elected people out of this meeting. I said, "I would like to be in this meeting because I would find it interesting to hear, first of all, what the commissioners say to the news media, and how they respond to the answers directed to them."

It wasn't legislative security. I would have, of course, easily complied with the suggestions from legislative security that I not enter a place that was illegal or something. But this was simply the Ministry of Health trying to keep elected members out of the place where the action was. I was disappointed and angered by that and I indicated my disapproval of that to those who were present at that time. The elected representatives were herded into another room like cattle to get the word. The word wasn't good. The word was not good.

You see, I've attended meetings where thousands of people were at the CAW hall in St Catharines. These weren't simply the brothers and sisters who are members of Local 199 or any of the other locals. This was rented out by people who wanted to save Hotel Dieu Hospital. It was overflowing. They were along the walls, they were out almost into the parking lot, people who wanted to save Hotel Dieu Hospital. This was rented by the local restructuring commission. Then, at Club Roma there was another meeting sponsored by the Friends of Hotel Dieu. Again, a large number of people who took time to come out, who have written letters, who have signed petitions, who have made telephone calls to preserve the Hotel Dieu in our community.

When I see those who will eagerly applaud the loss of the Hotel Dieu, I become concerned, because somehow we have to engage in this crackpot realism. There are those who'll throw a sop to them and say, "We understand the emotional attachment people have to Hotel Dieu." I can tell them there is an emotional and in many cases a religious attachment to Hotel Dieu, but there's also a very strong medical and health care attachment to Hotel Dieu and the services it has provided.

At the Hotel Dieu Hospital we have the oncology clinic. This is where people go for chemotherapy when they are being treated for cancer. A very special group of people work with those patients. It's a nice service because people can go in on a daily basis, come out of the hospital. We also have a very significant renal dialysis unit where people who have kidney problems and perhaps are waiting for a transplant, or certainly require the services of dialysis machines, are served. That is more than we think in terms of the difficulties such people experience.

I saw one of the doctors today quoted in the St Catharines Standard saying there is a problem. It says:

"A St Catharines doctor is blasting a report that overhauls health care in Niagara, claiming it could leave dialysis patients in the lurch."

Dr Anthony Broski, at Hotel Dieu Hospital, "claims a provincial commission made numerous errors when it calculated how much funding will be needed to meet future dialysis demands. He claims the resulting shortfall will be more than $13 million by the year 2003." That's just five years away.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Is that cumulative?

Mr Bradley: It's cumulative, yes.

Mr Maves: So that's not -

Mr Bradley: No, no. I'm sorry. What he pointed out was that the commission had made a mistake in that they thought there was only 13%, or a certain percentage, over a number of years. He said it increases each year. He said, for instance, that what had been projected last year and the year before was far less than actually happened; the growth was far greater.

"`If this plan goes through, there will be a crisis in dialysis,' said Broski. `Their method is grossly flawed, and it will result in underfunding.'

"The Health Services Restructuring Commission released its preliminary report Tuesday outlining the future of health care programming and funding in the Peninsula. It called for drastic changes, including the closure of Hotel Dieu in St Catharines, the creation of one body to govern all Niagara hospitals except West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby and $52 million for renovations and expansion to St Catharines General Hospital.

"Under the plan, Hotel Dieu's state-of-the-art dialysis unit would move to St Catharines General sometime after April 1, when the new Niagara Health Care System takes over the hospital, and before October 2000, when the Dieu is closed."

But the move to a new facility is going to cause some certain problems. The funding formula and the growth formula used to determine what is going to be needed is flawed, according to Dr Broski.

There is also an outstanding palliative care unit at the Hotel Dieu. It has a teleport right now where you can have helicopters land. It has the ambulance station right next door to it. There are diabetes services there. There are services for autistic children. There are some rehabilitative services nearby for people suffering from alcoholism or other substance dependence and abuse. So Hotel Dieu is very much required for our community well into the future.

I cannot speak for other members of the Legislature in the area, but I know there would be some considerable support for the continued operation of Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. I think it's important that those of us who do care stand together to challenge the commission's report and, probably more important, to convince the Minister of Health and the Premier that the closing of Hotel Dieu Hospital is unnecessary and ill-advised.

I also talked to some people in my area, and I raised this in the House yesterday, about the hospital in Burk's Falls. Apparently the hospital was closed, I am told, the only hospital in a long time to have been closed anywhere, under the previous government, and Ernie Eves, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the provincial finance minister, the Deputy Premier, went into Burk's Falls and ordered the hospital reopened. I suggested in the House yesterday that what should happen in St Catharines is that we should bring Ernie Eves there to reopen the Hotel Dieu, to at least save it from the clutches of the Ministry of Health and the commission appointed by Mike Harris to close hospitals in this province.

1720

I'm not prepared to accept what the chattering classes are saying about this, the people who say: "You've got to understand it's for the good of the community. Don't you understand health care in the future?" In the future, we are going to need all of our hospitals. People are living to a much older age these days. They need more acute care and more chronic care. Some people want to choose what they feel is the special atmosphere available in the Hotel Dieu Hospital. Others will choose the General and some the Shaver because of the type of treatment they're going to get.

I become, as do my constituents, rather incensed when I hear the government is cutting money from the operation of hospitals in our area while at the same time it's embarking upon yet another advertising adventure. Last night, I believe it was, on television we got the new set of ads. They're slick. Anybody who's an objective observer would say they are slick ads, clever ads. Do they provide any straight information? No, they do not. They provide a political message.

I mentioned in an earlier debate today - and members who have some agricultural areas, as the Speaker does, within their purview will appreciate this - that when the government has ads which promote Ontario produce, for instance, I have no objection. I encourage that. I think that's good. When the government puts an ad in the newspaper that says, "There will be hearings for the following bill," I think that's acceptable. When, as the government did, there was an ad in the paper saying, "There have been changes to the family support program and we have some legal people who will be available to you to answer your questions" - no propaganda in it, straight ad - I thought that was quite acceptable. But what we are seeing now is the carpet bombing of this province, a blitz of this province with self-serving, clearly blatant political advertising.

I have said in this House previously that I have been disappointed, though not entirely surprised, that we haven't heard from the editorialists on this, editorialists who are usually very careful to point out what they believe are abuses of public office, abuses of power, squandering of taxpayers' dollars. I had a person say to me the other day: "Don't be so naive. It's because they make money from the ads. When Mike Harris puts one of those ads in saying congratulations to somebody on creating jobs, with his picture, smiling and trying to get some attention for himself, when he does that the newspaper makes money. Do you really expect them to have editorials denouncing that?"

I'm not that cynical. My answer was yes, I do, because I don't believe that the order of precedence of a newspaper is, "We must satisfy the needs of our shareholders first, our advertisers second and our reading public third." I believe most newspapers see that they have a special role to play in a community, that their readership is the first consideration. So I expect, as I saw in the Brantford Expositor today, to see more of the kind of editorials that I think are very helpful, that really speak for most people in this province.

I also wondered about the crusty talk show hosts. There are some major Toronto stations and stations in other huge centres where you have the talk show host who takes a shot at government all the time - waste of money, abuse of power. Maybe I haven't had a chance to listen to the talk shows, but I haven't heard the criticism.

The Ontario Taxpayers' Coalition, always quick to point out, justifiably, what they believe are abuses of the public purse, has been silent. The cat has their tongue. It may be that they have not noticed the ads yet, although that's difficult not to do. The Canadian taxpayers - no, there's a Canadian organization anyway that's Canada-wide. Stephen Harper is the president, the former Reform Party member of Parliament and former aide to a Conservative minister. So I know it's totally independent. It's the National Citizens' Coalition. I thought they would have been watching. They're watching the transportation minister, who is trying to bring together the right and the right; the moderate right and the other right. He's trying to bring them together, his party - the Reform Party - and the Conservative Party. I would have thought that Stephen Harper would have noticed that Ontarians are squandering millions of dollars - not on information ads but on clearly, blatantly partisan ads - that could keep our schools open, provide for more teachers in our system, provide for the Hotel Dieu Hospital to stay open.

Let me read you this editorial from the Brantford Expositor. I want to compliment them for having the intestinal fortitude to print one of this kind, even though they may have some of the ads in their paper. It's entitled, "Hey, Who Called an Election?" It goes on to say:

"Did Premier Harris call an election last week and forget to tell anyone?

"It sure seems like it.

"Election-style ads are popping up in papers across the province. The one in the Expositor on Wednesday had a picture of some guys at a ketchup plant down in Leamington, a few paragraphs of puffery about how many jobs had been created in Ontario since the last election and, to round out the feel-good image, a picture of Premier Harris, smiling and looking oh-so-sincere, proclaiming that `The future's right here.'

"Ostensibly, the ads are to promote the province's education and training system, but there's not a word in them about programs, no phone numbers to call for more information, nothing about who might be eligible for assistance. Nothing except a message from good ol' Mike."

The Brantford Expositor editorial goes on to say:

"But that's not the only big advertising campaign going on at the moment. The Harris government has taken it on the chin for its handling - some would say mishandling - of the health care system. The government's response is a $4-million television campaign designed to get the message out that `sometimes change hurts.'

"Well, duh.

"And while all of these megabucks are going into advertising, there's the Premier and an entourage of ministers and assistants tootling around Ontario, going from hospital to hospital telling everyone how great things are. Why, they even stopped in Paris to talk about the good things going on at the Willett Hospital.

"However, it is curious that the visit was accompanied by an unusual amount of secrecy; hospital officials were ordered not to tell anyone, including their own employees, about the visit until just a few hours before the Premier was due to show up. Perhaps that's because the Premier didn't do so well during his last visit to Paris a few weeks ago when he was broadsided by a student asking some pointed questions about the education system. After all, the last thing you want during an election campaign is spontaneity.

"The opposition parties are up in arms over what they rightly say is a misuse of...funds to support the party in power. `Mike Harris might as well just steal the money from taxpayers and put it in the PC Party bank account,' is what Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty said about it.

"Now, to be fair to the Tories, this is certainly not the first time that a party in power has engaged in such shenanigans.

"But when the Tories took office three years ago they set themselves up on a higher pedestal, promising fiscal rectitude and vowing to bring an end to pork barrel politics."

Bob Runciman must be thinking about that one because of the hospital. He got a jail down there in his riding. Anyway, I digress from the excellent editorial. It goes on to say:

"In fact, it was an essential ingredient in their whole strategy; convince Ontario residents that everyone had to share the agony of cutbacks and downsizing on the road to the Common Sense Revolution.

"But, as we see so clearly this week, the concept of sharing ends at Queen's Park. At the same time that school boards are closing schools, cities are cutting services and some municipalities are having trouble containing their tax increases due to downloading, the Harris government has managed to find millions to spread the word about how wonderful the Premier is.

"Maybe the Tory brain trust figures you really can fool all of the people all of the time.

"However, we have a higher opinion of the intelligence of Ontario voters and firmly believe that they will see this Tory spending spree for what it really is: a shameful and deceitful abuse of power."

That's the Brantford Expositor exposing and commenting on the blitz campaign by this government.

This would be a wonderful opportunity to share with my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and the deputy leader and the critic in the field of finance and economics some time to allow a few thoughts on his part on this particular motion.

1730

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I wanted to talk on the motion. There are several areas of public policy that I think require significantly more airing and discussion and debate than the government's going to permit. Let me start with the property tax issue.

I think the public now are aware that since May 1997 we have had six property tax bills, six different pieces of legislation - here's one of them here, but there were six of them - dealing with property tax changes, and we are anxiously awaiting the seventh property tax bill. The government has announced they will be bringing one in to attempt to put a Band-Aid on the very significant problems that we have with property taxes out there right now.

Mr Bradley: We have a Band-Aid commercial.

Mr Phillips: That's a good analogy. Harris is showing the ripping off of the Band-Aid to try and put it back on to the property tax issue.

But I would just say to all of us, here we are now, there are about two months left in the municipalities' year, and they still don't know what they're supposed to do with property taxes. I don't think there's a municipality out there that's not laughing at the Legislature because we have had, as I say, six different property tax bills since May of last year and now we're awaiting the seventh. Unless I miss my bet, what the government will plan to do here is introduce it so late that there will not be an opportunity for the public to have input into this.

When I say "the public," I tell you that the clerks and treasurers of the province of Ontario - these are the senior municipal civil servants; the top civil servants - have time and again told us we are messing up the property tax system.

As a matter of fact, for the first time I can ever remember, the municipal clerks and treasurers held a press conference here in the Legislature to warn Mike Harris about what was going to happen. I hope the members remember. It was back in June. The clerks and treasurers called a press conference, and they're very reluctant to do this because they are civil servants - they do their best to stay out of the political arena - but they got so frustrated they called a press conference and said, "Listen." Firstly they said, "What you are doing is causing administrative chaos and potentially financial ruin for municipalities."

They predicted all these problems and they had five solutions for Mike Harris, and he rejected all five of them. By the way, they were all moved in committee and turned down by the government members. If you had adopted those back in June, we would not be facing the problem we face today.

I'll spend a little time on property tax because I will just say to the people of Ontario that watching the process of this property tax legislative development is embarrassing and the people who are paying the price now are the taxpayers and the municipalities. But it is obscene, in my opinion, that we will get a property tax piece of legislation and we will be ordered to deal with it, with virtually no debate and no opportunity for the people who are going to be affected by it to have input into it, and that's what has caused the problem.

If you go back over the history of these six bills, soon to be seven bills, the problems were identified and the government ignored them. They simply wouldn't listen. I remember, and Hansard will show it, as we say around here, the very first day that Mr Eves debated his very first tax bill. He went through his first 20 minutes and then we in the opposition have an opportunity to comment. If you look back, the very first thing I said to Mr Eves was, "Listen, your property tax bill is designed to shift taxes off big business onto small business; it's designed that way."

As you know, the government eliminated something called the business occupancy tax, BOT, and the business occupancy tax was paid at different rates, depending on the type of business: banks paid at 75%, small business at 30%, generally speaking.

Mr Bradley: Who are the winners this time?

Mr Phillips: The banks. I said to the minister at the time, is this really your intention? Is this what you want to do, shift property taxes from the big businesses to small business? Essentially he said that we're moving on to a system that will, to use the jargon, level the playing field, and you'll find that in the Hansard. So I'm always surprised when the government says, "We've got to step in and stop those municipalities from hammering small business, only we know best." Believe me, it was Mike Harris that created the problem, knew the problem was coming and refused to act on it.

I'll tell you a second thing we did, and again, if you look back in the record, we moved a motion here in the Legislature that would have ordered the cabinet, the government, to release what we call impact studies. It would have ordered the cabinet to release what is going to happen to property taxes when this bill is passed. Many people's background in this Legislature is business. You would never launch a completely new approach to your business without doing an impact study to find out what will be the impact of it.

The government refused to do it. As a matter of fact, the backbench members, you will find, voted against releasing these impact studies. Had we done that, had we taken the studies, which I guarantee you the cabinet had, and released them publicly, then people would have known. "Holy cow, this tax bill takes taxes up on small business and brings taxes down on big business. If that's going to be the impact, then let's find a way that we deal with it." I guarantee you, we would not have run into the enormous problems we're running into right now.

Mr Bradley: I can't believe how many bills.

Mr Phillips: My colleague says, "I can't believe how many bills." It is six bills, and in a matter of a few days, it will be the seventh bill.

I will also add a note of serious concern on the property tax bill and that was the decision last week made by the Supreme Court of Canada. I'll correct the record earlier in the Legislature, Mr Speaker, I said the Ontario Court of Appeal. It was actually the Supreme Court of Canada that made a ruling last week that, in my opinion, could have a profound impact on the property tax bill in Ontario and requires fixing.

Here is what the Supreme Court of Canada said, and it had to do with probate fees or estate fees. When someone passes away there is a fee that the province charges to process their estate. Depending on the size of the estate, it ranges from 0.5% up to 1.5%.

1740

What the Supreme Court of Canada said was the government of Ontario had acted improperly, that the fees that it was imposing were not fees, they were taxes. They ruled them, to use their language, invalid or illegal. They said that these fees were really taxes.

The fees were set by something called regulation, which means that it was the cabinet that made the decision, not the Legislature; never debated here in the Legislature. The way this works is that with the stroke of a pen at a cabinet meeting a new regulation is signed and these fees were imposed. The Supreme Court of Canada struck that down and said, "We are ruling that invalid or illegal."

For Ontario, it is at least $400 million of revenue that the Supreme Court of Canada said you are not legally entitled to that. The government is going to have to do something about it.

But here's the important part, and that is that the property tax bills give the government the authority to impose property taxes by regulation. As a matter of fact, for businesses in Ontario, 60% of your property tax - take a look at it - is going to education. That rate is set not by the Legislature but by regulation.

Mr Bradley: Behind closed doors.

Mr Phillips: Behind closed doors, by regulation, by the cabinet. Homeowners should look at their tax bill. About a quarter of your tax bill is paid for education. That rate is set not by the Legislature but by regulation, behind closed doors.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that taxes have to be set not by regulation but by the Legislature, and that's understandable. The public, I think, has a right, when their elected bodies are setting taxes on them, to have a say in that, to have a voice in it and to see that decision taken in full public view, where their elected officials are required to put their hands up and vote or stand and vote yea or nay for the taxes they are setting. Probably nothing is more fundamental than that, that taxes have to be set by an elected body.

But as you will remember, Mr Speaker, in one of the tax bills that the government has passed, this is what the property tax bill says: "The Minister of Finance will make regulations prescribing the tax rate for school purposes." That allows the Minister of Finance by regulation - and what that means is simply down the hall in the cabinet room - to sign a document to set the tax rates.

That's $5.5 billion. If you look at the budget, the fourth-largest source of revenue for the province of Ontario is property taxes. That was much of the debate we had several months ago, as you recall. Personal income tax is about $14.5 billion, retail sales tax is $11.5 billion, corporate tax is $7.6 billion, and then property tax is $5.5 billion.

But it is all set not by a vote here in the Legislature but regulation.

Mr Bradley: That's going to have to change.

Mr Phillips: I've talked to lawyers who are saying, "Listen, that is very likely to be ruled unconstitutional, invalid." I personally know somebody who is looking a class action suit around this.

I asked the Minister of Finance today, "Have you looked at the legal ruling?" He actually gave an answer which indicated to me he hadn't looked it because, in my opinion, he was incorrect. But here we are, about to deal with the seventh property tax bill and perhaps the most significant thing hanging over the property tax bill is the legal authority to raise $5.5 billion worth of taxes.

I might add as a side note that that decision by the Supreme Court of Canada I think could end up having an influence on far more than just the probate or the estate fees.

If you look at some of the other major fees that we have, just to give you an example of a few, Mr Speaker, the estate fees in the province of Ontario for 1998 were $67 million. To me it's not impossible that we will face court challenges on the land registration services, and I think perhaps even on some of the vehicle registration fees because many of those fees are really not fees, they are really taxes. For example, commercial vehicles are paying $2,700 for a licence fee. The fee bears no relationship to the cost of dealing with the fee. It really is a tax.

The reason I raised it today with the Minister of Finance was, firstly, it's $400 million. We've got six months to deal with that probate issue and, with the calendar that my colleague talked about, it sounds like we will not be getting legislation dealing with it this session. The House will break in the middle of December and we may not come back until the six months are up, so I would urge the government to move quickly on how they plan to deal with that. But I think more urgent is the whole issue of how the government is raising property taxes is now under a cloud as a result of that Supreme Court decision last week. So there's one issue that in my opinion we should be dealing with.

My colleague suggested that I stop at around five minutes on the clock. Fine, I certainly will do that.

My concern with the calendar with the motion we're dealing with is that we are not giving ourselves sufficient time to deal with what I will regard as the key upcoming issues, and one of them, without a question of a doubt, is going to be the property tax issue. Once again I think we are not going to be given the opportunity to fix the bill, the public's not going to be given the opportunity to have what any fairminded citizen would believe is necessary, and that is, for the people who are desperately affected by it to have their input. But of course now we're into the election. Everything around here has little to do with the process and much to do with the election.

We know that the government is spending $42 million of - to use Premier Mike Harris's language - hard-earned, hard-working taxpayers' dollars. Remember, for every dollar of that, somebody has gone out and earned that dollar, reluctantly paid it to the government. Mike Harris figures: "Thanks for the $42 million, folks. I'm going to spend it on" what any fairminded person would say is re-election stuff. It's just blatant, obvious misuse of taxpayer dollars. It's embarrassing - $42 million of taxpayer money and it's clearly to re-elect Mike Harris.

As my colleague said, that's like 10 times the amount of money that the opposition will spend on the campaign Mike Harris is going to spend using all taxpayer dollars.

In my opinion, all of the focus is on the re-election, none of the focus on the key issues, which should be trying to deal with legislation in a sensible and orderly fashion here.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Thank you, Speaker. I hadn't risen, but I appreciate being recognized nonetheless. Thank you for this opportunity to debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Turnbull has moved government notice of motion number 35. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to revert to motions and move a motion without notice with respect to evening sittings.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? It is agreed.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 26, 1998, the House shall not sit this evening, and shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 2, 1998, at 1:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

It being almost 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday.

The House adjourned at 1753.

29 octobre 1998