role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

February 4, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L156 - Tue 4 Feb 1997 / Mar 4 Fév 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ERNEST DEBASSIGE

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

SPORTS IN SIMCOE CENTRE

PIKANGIKUM YOUTH PATROL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

VINCENZA TRAVALE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

TAX REDUCTION

S-S TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS INC

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE

SCHOOL CURRICULUM MATERIALS

AIR QUALITY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

WORKWEEK

TUITION FEES

TRUCKING SAFETY

PAY EQUITY

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR WINDSOR-RIVERSIDE

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BEAR HUNTING

EDUCATION REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HEALTH INSURANCE

CLASS SIZE

RÉGLEMENTATION DES LOYERS

TVONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ERNEST DEBASSIGE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Residents of West Bay First Nation on Manitoulin Island are mourning the death of Ernest Louis Debassige, who passed away two days before Christmas. I know the House will want to share with me in extending heartfelt sympathy to Ernie's family. Yet people in West Bay, indeed people throughout Manitoulin Island, Ontario and the nation, not only mourn his passing, they celebrate his life as one dedicated to the welfare of people and particularly native people.

Born at West Bay, son of the late David and Cecile Debassige, Ernest served in the Second World War with the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders. Following the war, he was instrumental in gaining national recognition and a better life for Canada's native war veterans, sparking the foundation of the National Native Veterans' Association. He was a proud member of Branch 177 of the Royal Canadian Legion and a member of the Manitoulin Cenotaph Committee.

Ernie was active in the Union of Ontario Indians and his political involvements were known and respected nationally as a reflection of his unwavering loyalty to the goals and aspirations of his people. In 1993, the Canada 125 commemorative medal was presented to Ernie in recognition of his many contributions to veterans, youth and first nations causes.

I was proud and enriched to have known Ernie Debassige. In the words of Joseph Hare, grand council chief of the Anishnabek Nation, Ernest Louis Debassige was "a warrior to the end."

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): In the last few days the social development committee has been hearing from various members of the community about their concerns around what is happening to the disabled in this province. It was a very interesting experience for us to hear about the cumulative problems faced by the disabled as a result of the actions of the Progressive Conservative government. Indeed, it's very interesting particularly to hear of their analysis around what the implications of megaweek might be.

I only have time to talk about some of the questions raised by disabled groups around the dumping of 50% of social assistance on to the municipalities, but those questions are, for example: How does that dump fit with the redefinition of "disability?" How will that affect the numbers who are eligible to be considered for what the government has called its guaranteed income system? Who is going to be responsible for the Ontario drug plan? Who is going to manage to set the standards for who is eligible for that? What will happen in terms of special needs across the board in terms of assistive devices? What will happen in terms of appeals around assistance to the Social Assistance Review Board?

These are questions which the government has not answered and they are questions which are urgent to the disabled population of this province.

SPORTS IN SIMCOE CENTRE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak of some recent sporting achievements in my riding. On Tuesday, January 28, television viewers across Canada got a glimpse of Ontario Hockey League action at its best with the first annual OHL Bell All-Star Cup broadcast from Barrie. The Barrie Examiner reported, "The feeling in the air was electric" as a packed house of more than 4,000 cheered at the Barrie Molson Centre.

Simcoe Centre's home team, the Barrie Colts, normally plays for the central division, but moved to the east for the match. Players from the Colts gave it their all, but lost to the west in a close 5-4 game.

More than 40 of the best junior players in the country took

part in the OHL Bell All-Star Cup, and many have already found homes in the National Hockey League.

I would like to congratulate all the players, coaches and organizers for making this event such a success.

While we're on the subject of excellence in sports, I would like to extend my best wishes to all of the athletes, especially those from Simcoe Centre, who are participating in the 1997 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Collingwood and Toronto. I look forward to cheering them on.

PIKANGIKUM YOUTH PATROL

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'm delighted today to stand in my place and congratulate the Pikangikum Youth Patrol in winning the Ontario Community Newspapers Association Junior Citizen of the Year Award. Pikangikum's east and west side patrols received the OCNA's only group award, which will be presented by the Lieutenant Governor on April 4. "The youth group really deserves this recognition for all the work they've done in the last two years," stated Roy Fiddler, the nominator of the group.

This group of community-minded youth are extremely dedicated, and I commend them for wanting a better life for themselves, their families and friends.

The Pikangikum Youth Patrol was established in October 1994 after four people committed suicide in the community in the span of one week. Today there are more than 60 volunteers divided into east and west side patrols. Every night, from 6 pm to 6 am, volunteers take shifts patrolling the community in pairs. They look for teenagers who might be suicidal, sniffing gas or drinking. After finding someone who requires assistance, the group gains their confidence with the hope of bringing them home to safety. Volunteers have received training in counselling, conflict resolution and first aid.

The youth patrol has been so successful that they have been asked to go to other first nation communities to initiate the beginning of more patrols.

I ask that all members join me in congratulating this group of fine young adults who have dedicated themselves to improving the lives of their families and friends in the first nation communities throughout northern Ontario. We wish them well.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I last night attended two separate meetings on the amalgamation, the megacity bill: one in East York and one in Toronto. More and more people are coming to these meetings opposing the government. Now there is a group of women. More and more women are signing this document called the Women's Declaration Against Amalgamation and for Local Democracy. Women are being urged to oppose this amalgamation, sign this declaration and vote no in local referendums.

I'll give you a few of the reasons why. It says, "Women worked to create services that benefit our community, such as child care, recreation centres, settlement houses, health and safety programs and good public education." It goes on to say, "The added financial burden on municipalities will jeopardize existing and future services which women need: housing for low-income people, long-term care for the elderly, child care, public health services, environmental sustainability programs, programs to prevent violence" and it goes on and on.

I would urge all women who have concerns about this to sign the declaration and to join many of us at Toronto city hall on Wednesday, February 12, from 4 to 6 pm for a signing ceremony.

VINCENZA TRAVALE

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to take the opportunity today to extend my congratulations to a very special constituent of mine in my riding high atop Hamilton Mountain. Last Monday evening, Vincenza Travale received the 1996 Distinguished Citizen Award, sponsored by the Advertising and Sales Club of Hamilton. This award was in recognition of Vincenza's many years of commitment to volunteerism in her community and in recognition of her work as co-chair of Hamilton's 150th, or sesquicentennial, birthday celebrations.

Vincenza Travale spent her career with the Catholic separate school board, where she began as a teacher and ended as an associate director of education. In between, she found the time to contribute to the quality of life in her community.

As a former chair of the board of St Joseph's Hospital, a former chair of Festitalia, a current member of McMaster University's board of governors and the current chair of the board for the Hamilton Community Foundation, a $15-million endowment fund, Vincenza has shown the vital role that volunteerism plays in the life of the community.

Upon accepting the Distinguished Citizen Award, Vincenza explained her motivation to get involved as a volunteer, and I quote: "From those to whom much is given, much is expected. I've been given much -- the gift of life and other talents -- and it is best used in the service of others."

On behalf of the citizens of Hamilton Mountain, I thank Vincenza for her tireless efforts and her service to others and congratulate her again on this outstanding award.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): On November 28, 1996, this Legislature voted unanimously to approve Bill 78 and refer it to the standing committee on resources development. The Minister of Transportation congratulated me on my bill and told the Toronto Sun that he supports it.

I have been waiting not so patiently for the government to call my bill for discussion in committee and have been actively pressuring the committee Chair and the clerk for meetings to discuss my bill for almost a month.

The issue of protecting children from unsafe drivers who refuse to heed school bus warning lights is critical. Yet resources development has met only one day since my bill was passed and has been completely idle since then, with no government business before it.

I repeat: The need to protect Ontario's school children is urgent. The spectre has been raised that this government may well face a lawsuit in the future if it does not pass Bill 78 and another child dies needlessly.

The minister tells the media he supports Bill 78. Is this empty government rhetoric? School bus drivers, police and other stakeholders say that vehicle liability is the only measure which will ensure the conviction of drivers who endanger children's lives. This is not photo radar; it is an eyewitness report of a crime being committed.

I urge you to keep your promise and to immediately bring Bill 78 before the committee for an open public discussion.

TAX REDUCTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): As I go to meeting after meeting in my community, I'm hearing more and more of my constituents saying that they understand the connection between the downloading of costs to municipalities, the cuts in services and health and the cuts to kids' education in the classroom, and the Conservative government's income tax break that benefits primarily the wealthy.

More and more of them are saying they don't want the tax cut on that basis. There's one couple in my riding who took it a bit further, and I want to send this over to the Premier, but I'd like to read a couple of these letters into the record.

First of all, October 28: "Mr Premier, we do not want a tax refund financed by those in need, and therefore we're returning it through the cheque enclosed. This money is only to be used for direct assistance to a person in need. Thank you. Yours truly, Andrew Smith and Susan Smith." In that, they included a cheque for $132.

On January 11 they sent the next instalment with a letter to the Premier; that was a cheque for $106. They noted that their October cheque hadn't yet been cashed. Shortly after that, they received a letter back from the Premier with the cheque enclosed. He didn't want their money. He said: "As the Premier, I can't get involved in individual cases. Give it to a charity." They said that's not good enough.

They sent a letter to me saying: "We still do not want a tax cut that is financed by those in need. We still wish this money to be used directly to assist a person." They've asked me to help them get this message to the Premier. So I've got these letters and the cheque from October, and am sending it to the Premier. We hope he'll get the message.

S-S TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS INC

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I rise today to congratulate S-S Technologies Holdings Inc of Kitchener. As you know, Mr Speaker, this government's number one priority has been the creation of jobs, and historically job creation has been the result of positive economic activity in the private sector.

The more successful a business is, the larger the workforce it needs. The primary role of government in the job creation process is to create the conditions which attract an increasing number of successful businesses to the province, which encourages existing companies to expand in the province and which assists entrepreneurs to pursue their dream of establishing their own businesses.

This government has made a commitment to improve the business climate in the province. The first message this government promoted was that Ontario was open for business again. However, a government can only do so much to promote positive business conditions. Ultimately, the primary responsibility rests on the shoulders of companies to take advantage of the economic environment we have created.

One company that is taking full advantage of the positive economic climate we as a government are striving to create is S-S Technologies Holdings Inc of Kitchener. S-S Technologies Holdings is a Kitchener-based company of which I am very proud. S-S Technologies was recently named by the Financial Post as one of Canada's 50 best-managed private companies. S-S Tech, with its 195 employees, operates under a self-managed team system. Alexander Mikalachki, a professor at the University of Western Ontario's Ivey school of business says he doesn't know of another company that operates effective teams to the extent that S-S Tech does, and Ivey school MBA students have --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Ministry statements? It's time for oral questions.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): No government.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How can we have a question period when there are no ministers here?

Interjections.

The Speaker: There are a couple. Time for oral questions.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You will know that it is the practice prior to question period for the government to notify the opposition of which ministers might be absent. According to the list today only two, Messrs Saunderson and Villeneuve, were to be absent. What gives?

The Speaker: That's not for me to know. All I can tell you is it's time for oral questions. I'm looking now to the official opposition. If anyone is not prepared, I'll move on.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, or this week alone, 6,000 people gathered in Grimsby, 3,000 gathered in Fort Erie, 2,000 gathered in Port Colborne, and just to give you some idea of the scope here, when we talk about the 6,000 people who gathered in Grimsby, that's one third of the population -- that would be the equivalent of 200,000 people from the city of Toronto gathering here on the front steps of Queen's Park -- and they all had the same message.

They said that their hospitals are about to be closed and that they have to date been saving lives in their communities, and they're calling on you to keep the promise you made during the election not to close hospitals. So I want to ask you Premier, are you about to keep that promise? That's the one you made during the leaders' debate when you said, "Certainly I can guarantee you it's not my plan to close hospitals." Are you going to keep that promise, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health will know what's happening there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The Minister of Health.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): There is a challenge certainly, because as we all know the federal government has reduced payments to the province of Ontario by some $2 billion --

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I hear whining again. I hear a whiner.

Hon David Johnson: -- but I am pleased to say again today that this government is living up to its promises in all aspects of government, but particularly in health care, because we said we would spend at least $17.4 billion in health and the budget this year was $17.7 billion --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You promised not to close hospitals. That was your promise.

Hon David Johnson: -- and the member opposite can count on the fact that next year the budget will be at least $17.4 billion and probably more.

In terms of the people in Grimsby, the government is delighted that people are taking an interest in their hospital. We know that people have this interest and the government shares their interest. I would say that the district health council is looking at this issue. The district health councils and the restructuring commission are making plans to improve health care services and hospital services in our communities, and I think we have to let that process unroll.

The Speaker: Could I caution the members from both Essex South and Oriole to come to order while the minister is answering the question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I am shocked you're shocked actually.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier and the Minister of Health on a regular basis in this House and outside of it try to lay blame for what they're doing to our health care system on the federal government. I want to make it perfectly clear once again. It was the Premier who said, during the course of the campaign, "Certainly I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." This Premier said that. In addition, during the course of the campaign, the Premier said the following in writing: "The restructuring of federal transfer payments does not affect the Harris commitment to protecting Ontario's health care system." So let's put this to bed once and for all.

It is clear, Minister, that you simply cannot understand the important role that hospitals play in our rural communities. They have a greater proportion of an aging population, they have greater distances to travel between their communities and you can't understand how hard it is to attract doctors to a community that doesn't have a hospital.

Minister, you do not understand what effect your cuts are having on small-town Ontario. That's quite obvious. You do not understand that it's not like Toronto and --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson: What this government does understand is that we need to improve our health care system and we need to improve hospitals. That is precisely why this government has already to date announced over $600 million in improvements, improvements in terms of cardiac care, cancer, dialysis, long-term care, more money for hospitals in high-growth areas. Over $600 million has been announced.

In terms of what people have said, if we want to see what people have said, I'll quote from the Toronto Star of December 13 last year. In the Toronto Star article, it says: "McGuinty says he might close hospitals as part of a plan for better-integrated health care services across the province." It says McGuinty might close hospitals. Are we being consistent here? This government has embarked upon a course of improving hospital care in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: The minister doesn't understand, I think, the importance of this issue. Eleven thousand Ontarians left the comfort of their living rooms and marched because you are about to close their hospitals. They are frightened by the actions of your government. Not only are you shutting down hospitals, you are going to shut down emergency wards. You can't tell me that this is solely in response to the district health councils' recommendation. You have effectively put a gun to their heads and said: "The money's coming out. You guys make it happen." In addition, you are slashing $1.3 billion out of those hospitals that are lucky enough to survive.

Minister, will you not admit today that you are not about improving the health care system that we can offer to Ontarians? What you are about to do is to decrease our ability to care for the health of Ontarians, but especially so in small and rural communities.

Hon David Johnson: The reality is the Liberal Party, during the last election, said $17 billion was enough for the health care system of Ontario. Progressive Conservatives said no, that was not enough, that we needed more money in our health care system. We said at least $17.4 billion and we have exceeded that.

We have followed through on the district health council model appointed by the previous government. The previous government spent $26 million on the district health councils to come forward with expert advice in their communities. That advice is coming forward, that advice will be given to the restructuring commission, the restructuring commission will listen to the people of Ontario and at the end of the day we will have a better hospital system in Ontario, serving the needs, putting the patients first.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You can't trust the Tories with health.

Mr McGuinty: Yes, you can't trust this government with health.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): We'll move on to education now, so my next question is for the Minister of Education. Over the last three weeks you have been using $6.2 billion -- and this is your number, not mine -- to describe the amount of money municipalities would have had to spend on education by the year 2000. You've now said municipalities will not have to spend anything on education. I have a very simple question for you: Will you commit, here and now, to making sure that all of that $6.2 billion you have taken on is actually going to be spent on education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): It's a pleasure to stand in the House and once again say, yes, this government has committed to removing the burden on the property taxpayer of paying for education, a burden that has been increasing; and yes, it's true that that increase has represented 5% a year on average over the last decade; and yes, it's true that that amount of money would equal $6.2 billion by the year 2000. The province has finally taken that burden off the property taxpayer and taken it on provincially to make sure there's an equitable and fair funding system for every student across the province.

Our promise and our commitment remains clear today: It's to increase student achievement across our system and to meet the funding needs no matter what they are for every individual student right across the province. We have said that very clearly and I'm glad to be able to say it again today.

Mr McGuinty: What that means is that this minister is intent on removing a substantial amount of money from education funding in this province and spending it on a tax cut which will have no benefit to Ontario children whatsoever. As you well know, cuts are already being felt in the classroom. We have today larger class sizes in Ontario. We have significant cuts to special education programs throughout the province. We have had dozens of school boards eliminate junior kindergarten.

I want to ask you again very directly: Will you reinvest any savings back into the classroom? Will you spend every single penny of that $6.2 billion you say municipalities were going to spend, will you make sure that additional money is actually going to be spent on education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes. In fact, we have witnessed over the course of the last year that despite the fact this government has continued to fund junior kindergarten at exactly the same rate as other programs, despite the fact we've protected special needs funding, there have been some reductions in our system that have hurt students. That's why we have changed our system of governance, that's why we've taken on this burden of responsibility for funding education: To make sure that every dollar makes a difference to the young people of Ontario, because it's our commitment that every student have the same opportunity for a high-quality education.

The member opposite asks what this means. It means that this government measures success not in how much money it can waste in the name of education but at how high a level the students of Ontario can achieve, grade by grade, year by year, province-wide.

Mr McGuinty: It is clear that not only can we not trust this government with respect to health care, we cannot trust it with respect to education. Ontario now ranks 46th in North America -- and this is an embarrassment -- on per student funding for students at the elementary and secondary levels. In 1993-94 we were 29th. We've gone from 29th to 46th.

The minister talks about improving the quality of education. Well, your neglect is showing right now in class scores. Our children right now are being hurt by your actions. We have got to ready ourselves for the 21st century, and we're not going to do that if you take money out of education and give it to those who don't need it who are looking for a tax cut.

I want a guarantee right now, Minister. I've given you a couple of chances. I want a guarantee. I want to know that you're not going to cut any more from schools. You're going to have $6.2 billion. I want to know that children are not going to pay for your tax cut. Can you give me that guarantee right here and now?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member opposite can't take yes for an answer. Yes, there has been a history over the course of the last decade of mediocre results by our students, and that is not okay. It doesn't represent the ability of our students; it doesn't represent the ability of our teachers. What's wrong? What's wrong is simple. There are problems in our system where we are not directing the funds in education into places where it matters to students.

We are taking the very dramatic actions, very serious actions that it'll take to redress that. We made an announcement of clear standards of achievement in every grade. That's been missing in this province for years. We are restoring that. We have talked about assessment of student abilities right across the province. We are doing that. We have committed, and let me commit again today, to making sure we meet the needs of every individual student right across the province. That's a promise that's clear to the people of Ontario and that's a promise I'm glad to restate today.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My first question is for the Premier. Yesterday, we witnessed one of the most shameful displays of communications manipulation ever by a Minister of Health. Yesterday the Minister of Health cut hospital budgets in this province by a further $435 million, but then tried to stand up in this Legislature and say he was doing something good for hospitals. This means that in two years you have taken $800 million across the board from hospital budgets. Thousands of nurses have been laid off, other health care workers have been laid off and the impact is being felt by patients all across this province.

The question is a simple one: How do you expect hospitals across this province to provide the quality care that patients need as you force them to lay off thousands of nurses and health care workers? How do you expect them to provide the care?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Health could answer that.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): To the leader of the third party, the reality is that in this fiscal year, the year 1996-97, we have asked hospitals to look for administrative savings, savings in efficiencies, savings because of technological advances, of $365 million. We are pulling $365 million out of the system in terms of waste and duplication. We have announced investments of over $600 million into the health care system, over $600 million in terms of --

Applause.

Hon David Johnson: Those reinvestments of over $600 million include kidney dialysis, cardiac services, diabetes, cancer, funding into restructuring, long-term care, the Trillium drug expansion and on and on and on it goes.

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

Mr Hampton: You can tell by the weak applause from the government's back bench that even the government backbenchers know this isn't selling out there.

Minister, you think you can walk into this House and make empty announcements day after day and people are going to swallow it, when in every community across this province thousands of nurses and health care workers are being laid off and services are being shut down.

The fact of the matter is that you've come into this Legislature, as your predecessor came into this Legislature, and have made announcements, but that money has not done a thing out there either in terms of cardiac care or in terms of some of the dialysis units, because the same hospitals are having to lay off nurses because you're cutting the global budgets.

Let's be clear about this. You took $365 million last year, you're taking $435 million in the year we're about to enter, $800 million overall, and through your hospital closing commission you're taking even more: $30 million in Thunder Bay per year, $40 million in Sudbury. Why don't you be absolutely clear with people? You're cutting health care in this province.

Hon David Johnson: The reason I couldn't say that is because it's not true. This government has increased spending. This government said it would spend $17.4 billion in health. In actual fact, we'll be spending at least $17.7 billion, $17.7 billion being the budget, but my guess is that at the end of the day the actual spending will be higher than that.

The member says, for example, in terms of cardiac care that nothing is being done, yet the government has invested some $18 million into cardiac care in the province to increase the number of surgeries by 19%. Over half of those have already been realized. We are seeing progress not only in cardiac care, in cancer treatment, dialysis, the Trillium drug program -- right across the board this government is reinvesting in hospitals and health care in Ontario.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, you clearly haven't got any answers around how you expect hospitals to absorb another cost saving of anywhere from 4% to 10% It's absolutely ridiculous for you to stand here in this House among all of us who hear the stories day after day in our constituencies about the effect of your cuts on actual patients, actual families in actual communities.

We all know that many people have received their notices -- over 8,000 in the last nine months alone. We all hear about the long waiting lists for different kinds of surgery. We all hear about the problems with emergency rooms being closed because there are no beds available in hospitals. We know that there are serious difficulties faced by individual people. Your bland assurance to people that everything is fine because when it all comes out in the wash you're going to guarantee that this money is being spent is not being seen in the communities.

Minister, how can you possibly defend taking these kinds of dollars out of the hospitals when the hospitals have made it very clear to you that restructuring is --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson: I find it interesting to hear the message from the NDP in terms of a criticism with regard to the hospital situation when we know full well that over the last 10 years, primarily during the term of the NDP, that about 8,500 hospital beds were closed in the province of Ontario -- 8,500 beds closed, primarily under the NDP.

We know full well that the present system, in terms of re-examining the hospitals through the district health councils, was initiated by the NDP, some $26 million to start the process. This is a process involving the people of Ontario, a process involving the hospitals, a process to look for and find efficiencies. I mentioned Shelburne the other day. Two hospitals in Shelburne got together and formed one adminstration; the cost of one administration has been removed from the taxpayers. These are the kinds of savings we need in our system.

The Speaker: New question; the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I would just say to the Minister of Health that we have seen how much you're taking out of health care, but we haven't seen any community reinvestment; we haven't seen the community services that need to be there if people aren't going to be able to go to their hospital.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is to the minister responsible for municipal affairs, the other minister who is taking a lot of money out of the pockets of Ontario taxpayers. Three weeks ago the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced his massive download of health and social services on to the municipal property taxpayer. The minister boasts about a $1-billion community reinvestment fund at the municipal level, and he claims this will be an even tradeoff.

But on January 20, when I asked you if you were going to help Toronto with the download problem you've put to them, you said to me, "If anybody can't cut or reduce expenditures by...5% or 6% out of $7 billion, they shouldn't" run for office. Minister, a lot of people are beginning to think your whole process is a fraud. Tell us that isn't true.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It isn't true. I think if you looked in today's paper and went over the numbers that were printed in the Star -- these are the Metropolitan Toronto numbers -- they're indicating that they're going to have social programs of $1.655 billion. They had $234 million. That leaves $1.2 million coming off education. That leaves them with a shortfall of about $200 million on a $7-billion budget for a new city of Toronto. That's about, what, 3%? If they can't find 3%, I think they should probably find another line of work.

Mr Hampton: It's interesting how quickly the minister forgets numbers, because Metropolitan Toronto, in adding up the numbers, the continuing numbers this week, has come up with an effective download of at least $531 million. That's what you've downloaded so far. Even Alan Tonks, who sometimes agrees with you --

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: The Premier can shout and wail all he wants. The fact of the matter is, it's a --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): If you want to answer questions, why don't you answer when it's put to you, Mike?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Refer it to Mike. He wants to answer it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The Premier wants to answer this question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I don't get to direct the questions. Government members, if you could come to order I'd appreciate it, during their questions as well. Leader.

Mr Hampton: Minister, it comes to this: Will you guarantee Metropolitan Toronto that you will have in this so-called reinvestment fund $531 million for them to in effect handle your download, and will you guarantee to the other municipalities across Ontario that you will give them the amount of money they need to handle the millions of dollars of downloading? Will you guarantee that $1-billion fund will be there for them?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I'll refer to the numbers that were provided by Metropolitan Toronto. According to the numbers they provide, they will be --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This is quite the research you've done here, Al.

Hon Mr Leach: It's a whole lot better than his, Gerry. We've taken their numbers. They've also indicated that --

Ms Lankin: Where are those studies? I know you gave them instead to the Toronto Star so that you can get the information --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: The source of these numbers is the Metropolitan Toronto community services -- right from the source, okay? Included in those numbers is $369 million for social housing. As we have stated repeatedly, we're just starting negotiations with the federal government and the municipalities. It's doubtful that switch will take place next year. So if you take that $369 million out of the equation, Metropolitan Toronto will be $147 million ahead of the game.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: We see today the depth of the Minister of Municipal Affair's research capacity. People have been asking him for months to turn over his studies and his figures and he says, "Well, it'll all come in due time." Today we see the capacity of his research arm. He got one clipping out of the Toronto Star and the Minister of Municipal Affairs calls that his figures. If it weren't so pathetic it would be laughable, but it is truly pathetic.

Let me tell you what everyone thinks you're up to. What people believe is that you're going to go after all the municipalities -- Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Hamilton -- and you're going to go after their reserve funds. You're going to say to them, "You have to spend all of your reserve funds covering this downloading before there's any reinvestment fund available from the provincial government." Will you guarantee all those municipalities that you won't be going after their reserve funds, you won't force them to spend their reserve funds to cover your downloading?

Hon Mr Leach: Just to recap for the member opposite to tell him what we really are doing, we're going to be taking $5.4 billion off the property tax immediately -- that'll be about $6.2 billion by the year 2000 -- and we're asking the municipalities to assume certain services to offset that. That's the premise.

The numbers I've been quoting today have been provided by Metropolitan Toronto. Using their own numbers, it shows in 1997 a savings of $147 million. Would that equate to a tax cut? I think it probably could if we wanted to do that. I'm sure the member wouldn't want to challenge Metropolitan Toronto's own numbers. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yesterday the Minister of Community and Social Services was forced to admit that despite their grand announcements in the last budget, the Harris government, and this minister in particular, have not spent one nickel of the $40 million that they announced for child care. While children are waiting, the minister is making excuses. There are 34,000 children across the province, 17,000 in Metropolitan Toronto alone, in need of child care.

I say to the minister, admit that you never planned on spending money in the first place, and admit as well that your mega-week dumping of services means that child care will be competing for funding at the local municipal level for municipal taxpayer dollars against other services like long-term care, social assistance, social housing, garbage pickup and sewers.

Will you tell me and this House today what it's going to take before you start delivering on your promises to make children a priority and child care a priority?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm not in the habit of admitting things that are untrue. Our commitment stands. We have new money for child care. We've always been clear that this new money will be allocated pending the decisions of the child care reform and the Who Does What initiatives.

Second, one of the reasons across this province that there are children on subsidy waiting lists is not because Ontario has been reluctant to put its money on the table; our 80 cents has been on the table. The difficulty has been that some of the municipalities have not put their share on so those families can have that support. One of the reasons, under the Who Does What initiative, that we want to have mandatory services with municipalities is so we can meet that need which the member has pointed out today.

Mrs Caplan: I listened very carefully to the minister's answer and I want to tell this House and all Ontario what the Harris government and this minister are really doing when it comes to child care. Not only is this minister not spending the money that was promised to children and their families, but now the minister is cancelling approved projects and asking for the money back from child care.

Today in the gallery is Catherine Blake, who has worked with the Small Miracles child care centre in Clarington, a community in Durham. They've worked tirelessly for six years on this project. It was approved three years ago despite the fact that Clarington has the fifth-fastest-growing population in Canada, in Durham region, and a community where children in need of service make up 20%. This project was approved three years ago by your ministry. You have cancelled that, and on January 14 they received a letter from you saying their project had been terminated.

Minister, if you really have the commitment -- you've got $40 million on the table -- stand up today, reinstate this project, tell them they're going to get their money or at least --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Pretty smug over there. Pretty smug.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Is that what they are saying in Thornhill?

Mr Bradley: No, in Grimsby, where they are talking about your promises.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, and the Premier, thank you. It would be helpful if we could just have a little quiet.

Hon Mrs Ecker: This government has been very clear that we are trying to shift our resources, not for capital expenditures but to try and make sure that there are more dollars for front-line services. For example, the member mentioned earlier the lack of fee subsidy support for low-income working families that need child care. That is one of the things we think that money should be going towards.

I appreciate that in many of the communities they have capital needs --

Mrs Caplan: So you are cancelling projects, asking for the money back.

The Speaker: Member for Oriole.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate that in some of these communities there are capital needs. One of the problems that our government found in the Ministry of Community and Social Services was that there were many projects which the previous government had approved, and unfortunately the capital dollars to proceed with those projects had not been set aside in order to justify those approvals. It's a very difficult situation, and I sympathize with them, but we have to make this decision to put that money into things like fee subsidies.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM MATERIALS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training. Could the minister make it clear whether he and his government favour banning books in Ontario, and is it his intention, once he gets complete control over the education system, to ban books that are currently on the curriculum of high schools?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member opposite for the question. It's this government's intention --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Snobelen: One more time, Mr Speaker. It's this government's intention to lift student achievement right across this province. That's what this government's intention is. It's this government's intention to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are spent not in the name of education but in a way that makes a difference with students.

I have said on several occasions with direct reference to materials in the classroom that of course there is a board responsibility now for those materials. The province supports that with circular 14.

We are now looking for new ways in this new information age of making sure that our children are protected, to make sure they're protected from some of the information devices that are there. We are working in cooperation with technology folks, we are working in conjunction with boards and other people in education, to make sure that Ontario has a modern response to the kind of information that's available in classrooms. It's also our intention to make sure that students have access to that modern technology.

Mr Wildman: I was referring specifically to censorship and the banning of books. The minister will know that his parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton Centre, is quoted in the press as being in support of Reverend Ken Campbell and his efforts to have a particular book banned in the Halton Board of Education, from the schools in Milton. As a matter of fact, in the same article, Reverend Campbell is quoted as saying, "We were told that the legislation" -- that is, Bill 104 -- "will restore to the minister authority to overthrow board decisions such as this," that is, the board decision to keep a book on the restricted curriculum for grade 12 in that area.

The member for Halton Centre, the honourable parliamentary assistant for education and training, has said that he wants to see the book banned and he thinks the legislation will make that possible. Is that your purpose? Do you intend to ban books in Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's be very clear about this. There's no need to hide from this at all. There are a lot of people in Halton who are concerned about a book called Foxfire. They have written to my office about it. They've directed their inquiries to me personally. They've talked to the member for Halton Centre, they've talked to the member for Halton North and other members, and they're concerned. They think the book is not appropriate for reading by students, by children, by young people, by adolescents.

I am very concerned, as I'm sure the member opposite is, that we have some freedom of expression in schools but that it is reasonably controlled by community standards. That's the standard we've been held to in this country for many years. Those community standards change. I personally believe the best way to reflect community standards is to listen to the parents in a local area, and I hope parent groups will have something to say about this in the future.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): This hearkens back to 1939.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane South, I ask you to come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I don't want to argue with you. I'm asking you to come to order.

AIR QUALITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I know you are aware that for the past two years I have been very involved in representing the concerns of my community about the environmental impact, if any, of the expansion of Petro-Canada's lubricants plant in my riding of Mississauga South.

In recent months the plant's emissions of sulphur dioxide gas have been the subject of a hearing before the Environmental Appeal Board. I'm sure you are as pleased as I am that all the parties to the hearing reached an agreement concerning the plant's sulphur dioxide emissions and related air quality issues. This agreement was accepted by the Environmental Appeal Board on January 15, 1997. Minister, can you tell us about the terms of the agreement?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): First, I'd like to commend the member for Mississauga South for all her hard work with regard to finding an appropriate solution to a very difficult problem.

The agreement which was ratified by the board calls for Petro-Canada to have a concentration rate for sulphur dioxide at 20% or less of the allowable limit in the province. As well, Petro-Canada has committed $250,000 to a trust fund under the management of Petro-Canada and Greenpeace, which will conduct research into the airshed management of the area.

Our government applauds joint solutions. We look forward to cooperation between industry, community organizations and environmental groups like this.

Mrs Marland: Minister, as you said, Petro-Canada has agreed to reduce its emissions of sulphur dioxide so that the concentration of this gas is 20% or less of the limit permitted by Ontario's air pollution regulations, but during the hearing before the Environmental Appeal Board expert witnesses pointed to the need to revise Ontario's air quality regulations. Many of our limits on the emission of contaminants have not been updated since the 1970s, but we have made a great deal of progress since then in the technology that is available to control pollution. What steps is your ministry taking to bring Ontario's air quality regulations into the 21st century?

Hon Mr Sterling: This is a very pertinent question because not only was it recognized in this hearing but it was also recognized by the Provincial Auditor recently that we are 20 years behind in Ontario in bringing our air quality standards up to snuff. Quite frankly, we're going to do that in this province and we have a three-year plan under way to attack that problem in a serious and meaningful way.

In addition, we have done some other things as well. We have enhanced fine particulate monitoring in Ontario by some 400%. New technologies are enabling us to maintain a state-of-the-art air monitoring system. As well, we are seriously exploring the possibility of implementing a mandatory vehicle emission and maintenance program, which was never put forward by previous governments but has been put forward by one province in this country and several states in the United States.

The ministry is also aggressively working with a variety of stakeholders to reduce the contributions to smog in this province. In total, we are attacking this --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, thank you very much.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier of Ontario. People who attended a rally in Grimsby last night, the largest single public gathering of people the town has ever seen, requested that I ask you a question about the future of their hospital. They believed you when you said the following during the leaders' debate during the last election campaign, and I quote you directly, Premier: "Certainly I can guarantee you it's not my plan to close hospitals."

As the person who made this solemn promise, as the Premier of this province, as the person now in charge, will you guarantee to the people of Grimsby, St Catharines, Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Niagara-on-the-Lake that they will not have their hospitals closed?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't mind answering the question at all, if you wish to talk about commitments in the campaign. Your leader in the campaign said, "Yes, I'd be prepared to close hospitals." I was asked, was I planning to close hospitals, so I said, "No, I'm not planning to close hospitals." But I said, because the NDP had a study out, a restructuring study -- district health councils, hospitals themselves were saying, "Some of us should close." That wasn't my plan; those were hospital plans, district health council plans, NDP plans and your Liberal leader's plans. They weren't my plans.

We clearly said in the campaign that we would wait for the study that was being done by the New Democratic Party and we would analyse that. Our response to that was to appoint the restructuring committee so that communities themselves could make the decisions, could decide how the health care dollars could best be spent in their areas and their regions. That's the process that's being followed all across the province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary?

Mr Bradley: I have the answer from the Premier in the initial question, which was that he will not live up to the promise, so I don't have a supplementary.

WORKWEEK

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, as you know, workers have been struggling for over 100 years to shorten the standard workweek. We know that the shorter workweek serves two purposes: first, it provides a better quality of life for workers and their families, and second, it creates opportunity for jobs for the unemployed. It makes absolutely no sense to have people working longer and longer hours while we have growing numbers of unemployed. Yet your government's Red Tape Review Commission moves in exactly the wrong direction and suggests that we move to a 50-hour workweek.

Since 1948 in Ontario, we've had a 48-hour workweek. In fact, the Mining Operation Act provided a 48-hour workweek in 1890. Minister, you owe it to workers in this province and their families and to the unemployed to stand in your place today and say you have absolutely no intention of lengthening the standard workweek from 48 to 50 hours. Please stand in your place and say that today.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I am well aware of the fact that the maximum hours of work at the present time are 48 hours a week. As I have indicated in this House on several occasions, we are planning to do a review of the Employment Standards Act. At that time, all the issues that are part of the Employment Standards Act will be reviewed. Obviously, that issue is going to be of extreme importance to all the stakeholders, and I will be looking forward to their input on that issue.

Mr Christopherson: That's an absolutely shameful answer to give to workers in this province and their families and to the unemployed who need to see, if anything, a shorter workweek. You ought to be standing in your place saying today that this whole idea is dead in the water. It's shameful that you aren't.

That same report goes on to say, contrary to assurances you've given me in this House that you're not going to water down the right to refuse unsafe work, that indeed you're going to make changes that would "significantly reduce the number of work stoppages" by putting in tough new criteria. Minister, we know all about your code words. "Significantly reduce" means you are going to water down the right to refuse unsafe work. It says so clearly in that report.

For God's sake, start putting some meat behind the empty language you continually give in this House. Stand in your place today and say you have no intention of moving on that recommendation and that you've no intention of watering down the right to refuse unsafe work in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think the member opposite would agree with me that these are issues of extreme importance to the people of Ontario, and that's exactly why we are giving them the opportunity to respond to our discussion paper on the Occupational Health and Safety Act and also the Employment Standards Act.

Mr Christopherson: All you've done is to take away rights for workers. That's all you've done.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, please come to order.

Mr Christopherson: This is disgusting, Speaker. We listen to this language every day.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I warn you to come to order.

Mr Christopherson: Absolutely disgusting.

The Speaker: I warn the member for Hamilton Centre to come to order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As we start to take a look at reviewing both those acts, we are responding to exactly the concerns you've brought to my attention today. We're going to have a complete discussion on those issues, just as you've asked us to.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I want to warn you to come to order. It's being very disruptive. You know you're being clearly heard around the chamber. I ask you to come to order.

TUITION FEES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. While there's been a tremendous amount of discussion in the public of the government's plan to take education funding off the residential property tax, something that meets with strong support in my community, there are other important issues with respect to post-secondary education.

I understand that the University of Toronto has been lobbying the provincial government for full deregulation of tuition fees. I also understand that a number of other universities across the province have been lobbying for a 20% increase in tuition fees over the next academic year. Could the Minister of Education confirm this?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): It's true that some universities, including the University of Toronto, have called on this government to have tuition fee increases immediately of everything from 20% to a fully deregulated tuition environment. This obviously would have an enormous shock on students, that size of tuition fee increase suddenly.

Mr Baird: I would certainly agree that those demands from a good number of universities across the province of Ontario are far too excessive in the absence of an income-contingent loan repayment plan. There's growing support for an income-contingent loan repayment plan, support from students, student governments, university and college officials and parents across the province of Ontario. Could the minister advise the House where we stand with respect to the implementation of an income-contingent loan repayment proposal?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm very pleased to restate the commitments we made in the Common Sense Revolution, which we walked door to door in this province and made to the people of Ontario. We had a promise that we would pursue an income-contingent loans program specifically because we believe that meant that no student with the appropriate qualifications and the desire would be denied access to our institutions.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Last week a safety blitz that was conducted just east of Toronto found that more than half the trucks that were stopped were taken off the road. How does the minister react to that and how will this result affect his plans with respect to road safety in Ontario?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I certainly want to thank the member for the question. Obviously, our staff are out there doing the job that the people of Ontario expect us to do, and we're not going to stop until truck safety in the province of Ontario is the best in North America. We will continue to do that job.

Mr Duncan: I think the implications of the blitz are that you haven't had a plan, that despite all of your bluster and all of your press releases, road safety in this province has not only not improved, it's probably gotten worse. According to your own ministry statistics, the wheels are coming off road safety in Ontario.

Today we see that federal deputy ministers are planning to meet. The families of victims of road accidents are calling upon you to act more quickly. They are calling upon you to do the things that have been recommended to you by countless studies, by the inquiry that was held into the Worona death and also by recommendations of the OPP and the CAA.

When are you going to react? If you won't react, will you do what we've asked you to do repeatedly, have a legislative inquiry into this initiative, into road safety and road maintenance in this province, so that people of Ontario can be assured that their roads will continue to be safe and they can travel between points without fear of their lives?

Hon Mr Palladini: I'm very happy to see that finally the federal government has taken some interest since my appointment as Minister of Transportation and, I believe, the first discussion I had with the then Minister of Transport, Mr Young, with the concern I had for a national safety policy that was not coherent in the country of Canada. I've also, I would like to tell my honourable critic, had numerous discussions with ministers across Canada.

Would you believe that one of the things that came across is, "We don't have a problem in the rest of Canada." Well, that's not true. We have a problem not only in the GTA but in all the provinces of Canada. I'm glad that we're finally going to see some action and maybe collectively we can resolve this problem that exists not just in the GTA but across Canada.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question to the minister responsible for women's issues. Last week when the NDP pay equity laws guaranteeing fair pay for women came under attack from the Tory task force on red tape -- a panel made up of 10 men and one woman, I might add -- we heard nothing at all from the minister responsible for women's issues in this government. Reading last Thursday's Ottawa Citizen, I found out why. This article, a long profile and interview with Dianne Cunningham, says, "The minister believes women don't earn as much as men partly because they choose part-time work. She said, `Women choose to live their lives in a very different way.'"

No wonder the minister doesn't speak up when pay equity is under attack, or when the employment equity laws that encourage promotion of women are repealed, or when the Premier says working women are to blame if their children go to school hungry. Pay equity has nothing to do with part-time work. Does the minister really believe that women choose to be paid less?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): As the member well knows, in political life when we're asked questions sometimes parts of responses are published and other parts are missing, so I appreciate the opportunity to answer the question. We have had input, all of us within the government, on the whole issue of pay equity. The Premier on many occasions and certainly the Minister of Labour have responded to this question by saying that more money than any other government has been put into the budget of the Ontario government this year to respond to the issue of pay equity within this government.

That is a very positive, very factual and extremely important indication by the government as to its commitment to the issue of pay equity. As far as what goes into it is concerned, that's an issue many of us have spoken to over the years, and those are not the only two components that should be taken into consideration. I'd be happy to have this discussion with the member at some further opportunity.

Ms Churley: I can't understand how you could say that with a straight face. You're the government that cut proxy pay equity, which was pay equity for the most vulnerable, lowest-paid women in Ontario; your government cut 140,000 of them. Get your numbers straight here.

The

article in the Ottawa Citizen says that the minister has some ideas for improving the economic status of women. It says she believes that this can be achieved through deficit cutting and training opportunities for unemployed women, for example, under the province's workfare program. What workfare program? What these women really need are real training programs and real jobs being created and real pay equity. Will you guarantee today that you will talk to the Minister of Labour and your Premier to reinstate the proxy method so those low-paid women --

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

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The response to the question is that everybody who's interested in this whole issue knows right now that there has been a report made to the government on pay equity, the Read report. There are some 21 recommendations. I studied it very carefully. I have written a full-page advisory note to the Minister of Labour. We have met on this issue on more than one occasion. I have met with representatives of the Pay Equity Commission. I have met with women who are interested in this whole issue and have given my best advice.

The response specifically about the proxy method is that there is no indication that's a method that worked for women, and it's not a method that is used, to the best of my knowledge -- if the member wants to give me better advice -- anywhere in Canada. Having said that, I will say now that we will be responding to this report at the appropriate time.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR WINDSOR-RIVERSIDE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Dave Cooke, member for the electoral district of Windsor-Riverside, effective January 31, 1997. Accordingly, my warrant has been issued to the chief election officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for the riding of Sudbury, limits the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a class in a school in Ontario; and

"Whereas this limit depends on the grade level of the class; and

"Whereas studies have concluded that there are clear benefits from smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas there is greater student involvement and interaction; and

"Whereas there is improved student performance; and

"Whereas there is the opportunity for greater individualization; and

"Whereas smaller class sizes allow for a more varied and constructive education for students;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support this private member's bill as it enhances classroom education."

I affix my name to it.

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from my community in Hamilton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the tragic deaths of two workers at Dofasco's bayfront steel mill raise serious questions about safety procedures; and

"Whereas the representatives of the workers, the United Steelworkers of America, were stonewalled and shut out of the early stages of the investigation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris Conservatives have abolished the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, and laid off the agency's staff of safety training experts; and

"Whereas the Harris government has reduced the requirements for workplace health and safety training; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is considering changes to the role of the joint health and safety commission and to the right to refuse unsafe work which could lead to even more workplace accidents in the future; and

"Whereas deregulating workplace health and safety will lead to more deaths and injuries;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand a coroner's inquest into the fatal accident at Dofasco, along with a complete investigation including full participation by the representatives of the workers."

I add my name to theirs.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm presenting a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by approximately 25 people who are associated with the resident care committee of Leisureworld Nursing Home in Barrie. The petition reads:

"We do not agree that residents of a long-term-care facility should have to pay part of their prescription costs, especially if their income is below $18,000 per year, and ask the Legislature to consider eliminating this prescription copayment for residents of long-term-care facilities with an income of less than $18,000 a year."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act, will dismantle all tenant protection legislation in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 96 will lift rent control in Ontario, leaving Ontario's 3.3 million tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is giving landlords the freedom to demolish apartment buildings and convert apartments into condominiums;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 96 and save rent control."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government has begun a process to open the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario; and

"Whereas this act is the single most important piece of legislation for working people since it is designed to protect our lives, safety and health while at work and allow us to return home to our families in the same condition in which we left; and

"Whereas the government has made it clear that they intend to water down the act and weaken the rights of workers under the law, including the right to know, the right to participate and especially the right to refuse unsafe work; and

"Whereas this government has already watered down proper training of certified committee members;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the legislation."

I add my name to theirs in support.

BEAR HUNTING

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the assembly and specifically to the Minister of Education and Training:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is the relationship between student and teacher and that this human relation dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. As Minister of Education and Training, you should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary school reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and government.

"We therefore strongly urge your ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

I have affixed my signature to this document because I agree with it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

This is signed by 18 residents of the city of Welland. I agree with the petitioners and I have affixed my signature to it.

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here signed by a number of East York residents, including Beryl Corneil, John Ridout and Jack Christie. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of East York, are in favour of the borough of East York remaining as a separate municipality."

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I have affixed my signature.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the Harris government has begun a process to open the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government has launched an all-out attack on working women and men that will expose them to dangerous and hazardous working conditions; and

"Whereas the Harris government is going to be responsible for the inevitable death and injury that will be caused to workers in these unsafe workplaces created by the Harris government's policies; and

"Whereas the Harris government shows nothing but disdain for the working people of the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas this act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario, is the single most important piece of legislation for working people since it is designed to protect our lives, safety and health while we are at work and is designed to allow us to return home to our families hopefully in the same condition that we left; and

"Whereas the government has made it clear that it intends in its hamfisted and right-wing manner to water down the act and weaken the rights of workers under the law, including the right to know, the right to participate and especially the right to refuse; and

"Whereas this government has already watered down proper training of certified committee members;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the legislation."

It's signed by David Leblanc of Thorold, by V. Vaillancourt of Hamilton, by Chris Pizzacalla of Front Street down in Thorold, and many, many other working people concerned about the health and safety of workers here in Ontario and the damage that this government has done and will continue to do to them.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition which is not in the proper format addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, but I'll read it anyway. It is regarding medicare and it bears the signatures of 13 of my constituents, all of whom are senior citizens. They are concerned with the fairness of having to pay for extra accident and sickness insurance coverage when they vacation outside the country.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for the riding of Sudbury, limits the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a class in a school in Ontario; and

"Whereas this limit depends on the grade level of the class; and

"Whereas studies have concluded that there are clear benefits from smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas there is greater student involvement and interaction; and

"Whereas there is improved student performance; and

"Whereas there is the opportunity for greater individualization; and

"Whereas smaller class sizes allow for a more varied and constructive education for students;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support this private member's bill as it enhances classroom education."

I am very proud to sign my name to this petition.

RÉGLEMENTATION DES LOYERS

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud): J'ai ici une pétition de beaucoup de résidents de la ville de Timmins. La pétition se lit comme suit :

«Attendu que le gouvernement conservateur de Mike Harris prévoit démanteler le système actuel de contrôle des loyers ;

«Attendu que Mike Harris et le Parti conservateur n'ont pas mentionné le démantèlement du contrôle des loyers durant la campagne électorale de 1995 ou dans leur document intitulé La Révolution du bon sens ;

«Attendu que de nombreux candidats conservateurs dans leurs circonscriptions avec de fortes concentrations de locataires ont fait campagne durant les élections de 1995 en promettant de protéger le système actuel de contrôle des loyers ;

«Attendu que le gouvernement a consulté des groupes d'intérêt représentant les propriétaires et les promoteurs, tout en éliminant le financement accordé aux organismes représentant les quelque 3,5 millions de locataires en Ontario ;

«Nous, soussignés, exhortons le premier ministre Mike Harris, Al Leach, ministre du Logement, et les députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario à mettre fin à l'attaque contre les 3,5 millions de locataires dans la province de l'Ontario.»

Je signe cette pétition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario has been providing Ontarians of all ages with high-quality educational programs and services delivered through television and other media for 25 years;

"Whereas TVOntario provides universal access to educational broadcasting in the most effective way possible;

"Whereas TVOntario provides essential broadcast services to communities in northern Ontario;

"Whereas TVOntario has an extensive community-based advisory network spanning the province;

"Whereas TVOntario is committed to increasing net self-generated revenues by 15% every year;

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

"To formally commit to the province's continued support of TVOntario as a publicly owned educational network."

This petition is signed by people from Elliot Lake, Blind River, Iron Bridge and other North Shore communities.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The young page Sandeep from York South will be delivering it to the table, sir. It reads:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused in the workplace;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

It's signed by David Ferguson of Pine Street in Thorold, by Edward Lawrence of Keefer Road, and by numerous other hardworking people of Niagara region. I give this now to Sandeep from York South to deliver to the Clerk.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 104,

An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 104, Loi visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte, l'efficacité et la qualité du système scolaire ontarien en permettant la réduction du nombre des conseils scolaires, en créant la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, chargée d'encadrer la transition vers le nouveau système, en prévoyant certaines questions liées aux élections de 1997 et en apportant d'autres améliorations à la

Loi sur l'éducation et à la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I'm told the member for Halton Centre has the floor.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Through the Fewer School Boards Act, we are streamlining the structure of the system and focusing resources in the classroom, where they belong. According to A Report on School Board Spending, 1995 to 1996, some boards in Ontario devote up to 73% in the classroom, others as little as 51%, a 22% difference that adds up to millions and millions of dollars. The report found that on average, for every dollar spent in the classroom, more than 80 cents was spent outside the classroom.

If we're going to give every student in this province an opportunity to excel, that discrepancy cannot continue. We're taking steps to ensure that non-classroom spending is minimized in order to maximize the resources focused on the classroom.

The Fewer School Boards Act will streamline administrative overhead by cutting the number of major school boards in Ontario in half, from 129 to 66, and replacing them with new district school boards, effective January 1, 1998. The district boards will follow, where possible, municipal boundaries. We will be retaining the small isolate and hospital boards as school authorities.

Since school boards will no longer be in the taxation business and trustees will be restored to their traditional and appropriate role as guardians of local education, this legislation provides the mechanism through which the number of politicians at major school boards will be cut from almost 1,900 to approximately 700. School boards will have between five and 12 trustees, except Metro Toronto, which, due to its size, will have 22 trustees. The number and geographic distribution of trustees for individual boards will be based on student population and density tables that we will set out in regulation.

The government is also clarifying the criteria for who is eligible to serve as a trustee. Elected trustees should be full participants in all decisions. They should not have to withdraw from debates due to recurrent conflicts of interest. Through this legislation, school board employees and their spouses will no longer be able to serve as a trustee in any school board or school authority in Ontario. Running for office will be permitted only if the employee takes a leave of absence. In addition, trustees will no longer be able to take home the equivalent of a full-time salary, some more than $49,000 a year. Instead, school boards will have the option to provide an honorarium of up to $5,000.

The trustees' role now will be to provide policy direction and support, not to be micromanagers in the schools. By clarifying that role, we are allowing teachers and principals to once again take responsibility for the operation of their schools.

Finally, to make sure that these reforms take place in an organized and careful way, the government is establishing the Education Improvement Commission, which will work with the local community, including trustees, classroom teachers and parents, to guide the process of change.

Just before I finish, I'd like to comment on the media coverage that surrounded the minister's announcement. I am heartened by the number of trustees who stated unequivocally that they became trustees because they believed in the value of education. I can also understand the questions that were raised by trustees and others, because change is never easy.

I can assure you those questions will be answered in committee debates and as the commission begins its work. What I can't understand are the comments I read from a small minority of people who seem to suggest the education system in its current form is somehow above change and reform. The reforms this government is making are based on extensive consultation with the people of this province. The issues have been studied again and again in 24 separate reviews on finance and governance since 1950, including royal commissions, committees, fact-finding reports, panels and innumerable meetings.

After every review there have been calls for changes to improve the way the system operates. Governments of all political stripes in other provinces have already responded by introducing similar changes. That leads me to some of the most telling comments that I read last week.

A number of trustees from those other jurisdictions who have already embarked on similar system-wide reforms and are already noting positive results, such as dramatic improvements in student performance on international tests -- their advice to us in Ontario is to move ahead with the reforms and keep our attention focused on the classroom. That captures the essence of what this government is doing. We are showing leadership in finally tackling in a comprehensive way the problems with the education status quo and we are doing it in a way that demonstrates both responsibility and accountability to the students and teachers, to parents and to the taxpayers of Ontario.

In the final analysis, we are delivering on our promise of providing our students with an education that is second to none.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I do not feel a good feeling about having to speak on this bill, because I happen to think that the purpose of this bill is really to wrestle control from local people in education and give it to a central bureaucracy and that the ultimate goal of the Minister of Education and the Premier is to take money out of the education system, and that means taking it out of the classroom at this time.

There have been efforts already made in years gone by to control expenditures in various fields. Indeed, Premier Rae -- I was reading his book -- lamented the fact that he had to become involved in some control of expenditures in education by means of implementing the social contract, which affected the collective agreements of people in education, and had to hold down the potential increases that might have existed in education, so this is not a new effort. You will make the point that you're simply following on the policy of the last government.

While the last government, in the midst of a very deep recession, undertook some of these activities, the zeal with which you are moving into a system that has had the fat removed from it, if you will, if there was fat in that system, is going to have an effect on what is happening in the classroom.

I always give you credit over there for your public relations in terms of the way you spin your message. While you want to talk about things in a simplistic manner and say to people, "Doesn't it mean an improvement if we have fewer politicians, and aren't the politicians the real problem out there?" you have to look at what the alternative is to elected representatives. The alternative is that bureaucracy then rules or the corporate sector takes over an increasing responsibility in our province.

When I think of people such as Bob Welch, Tom Wells, Bette Stephenson and others, Larry Grossman as well, who held the education portfolio in the past with a Conservative stripe on their back, as part of a Conservative government, I believe many of these people would be appalled at what you're doing to the education system, particularly Premier Davis himself. In education, a lot of people supported the Conservatives in the 1960s and the 1970s, based on Premier Robarts's premiership and Education Minister Bill Davis implementing a policy for the province.

Subsequent to that, Premier Davis, with various ministers of education, built an education system which would try to serve all the people in our province. There are what are called the regular classroom students who may not require additional assistance or help, but there are many people now who are part of the regular classroom who have disabilities. When they are placed in a regular classroom, it means there's a necessity for teacher aides to help out with the special needs of those individuals, whether they happen to be physically disabled or developmentally disabled.

What we're going to see as a result of the constant squeeze on the funding in education is that these people will fall by the wayside.

Already this government has made a decision that it will not fund junior kindergarten, and the consequence of that can be seen later on in life as opposed to immediately. There are far more children today, whether we like it or not, than there were a generation ago who come to the education system from dysfunctional families or disadvantaged families. As a result, the earlier the intervention to assist these youngsters, the better it is. Even people who in years gone by were opposed to junior kindergarten, who characterized it as an expensive babysitting service, have come around to the view that it is an extremely important investment in the future of our province.

Studies internationally, not simply in our own country but internationally, have demonstrated that the funding of junior kindergarten has a measurable effect on our future society by bringing about a situation where you have fewer people in the penal system, fewer people requiring social service payments and fewer people being, if I may use the terminology, disruptive to society. This government does not consider that to be important and I believe has already removed the funding for that in our education system.

You will have this resonate well with some people out there. There is a group of people who are anti-public sector, who are anti-education in terms of the education establishment, as they would call it, and they will applaud you for what you're doing. But I point out that you're dealing with the future of the province. You're dealing with vulnerable children in many cases, and as they get into secondary and post-secondary education, you're dealing with people who are going to be the future professionals or future workers in some other area in our province. I ask you not to shortchange those people.

We have heard government speakers get up and give the government line. I understand that and I think in democracy all sides must be heard. I am not a person who immediately dismisses what everybody else has to say, but I am fearful that what you are doing in the education system is going to be detrimental. I know you made the promise that you would not cut funding to classroom education. So you have the Minister of Education get up and start to define in a rather narrow and interesting way what is classroom education, excluding, I believe, such things as library services and other services that are really a part of the classroom education when you think of it.

You as well are worrying people out there that you're going to privatize the system. There are thousands of workers out there in the public sector who have given dedicated service to the field of education, who have worked very hard, who are extremely committed, who are in jeopardy now of losing their jobs. That ultimately has a bad spinoff in our communities.

I've talked to people now who are school secretaries, who are working at the board of education in various capacities, who believe that what you're going to do is privatize the system, that you're going to contract out those services and that people who have had long-time employment are going to be left behind. This again does not bode well for our communities.

I know some people on the government side believe that when you get rid of public sector jobs, somehow you've done something good for the economy. We don't want public sector jobs just for the sake of public sector jobs. I wouldn't suggest that; I don't think anybody, in fairness, would suggest that. But we're saying there are many positions that are essential to an education system, even those outside the classroom, and that cuts have already been made in the field of education.

The government of Ontario has said that the $400-million cut introduced last year to school boards wouldn't hurt classrooms. Well, we've seen plenty of evidence that it has had an effect on classrooms. To date the government cuts to education have meant larger classes, more portables, less support for students and reduced access to essential learning resources such as libraries and textbooks.

This bill will now allow private companies into our schools, with the outsourcing of services. This is the first step, in our view, to the privatization of our schools. For that reason alone we must question the hidden agenda of education of this particular Minister of Education.

The government insists that amalgamation will save money despite the findings of a report they commissioned that clearly states that there is no evidence suggesting that amalgamation will save money. That's a report on school board spending by Ernst and Young.

You have the advantage of sounding plausible. You have the advantage of making a simple point to the people, as you do through your television ads. I see that the Premier now is on television speaking supposedly from the classroom. The people of this province who are watching this afternoon should know that they have to reach into their wallet every time the Premier comes on television on one of those ads because they are paying for those ads. In fact the Conservative government is spending, in the last couple of months in this program, more money than it spent in the entire election campaign.

The entire advertising budget of the Conservative Party in the last election campaign is less than what you're spending today on government advertising.

Now I see that you're going out into other areas: The Premier is going to spend $50 million on more ads. Coincidentally some of those ads might just be watched by people of Ontario if they're tuning into United States stations or if they're on airplanes and are travelling on Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and other airlines. They will get to see those. So the spinoff effect is, of course, positive for the Premier and the government.

The people who were out in Grimsby last night, over 6,000 strong, the people who were out in Port Colborne, over 2,000 strong, and Fort Erie, over 3,000 strong, would prefer to see that money spent on their hospital system, not on advertising by this government.

I think it's absolutely scandalous that you are paying for, out of the taxpayers' money, ads through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Education and Training, and later the Ministry of Health, which are simply self-serving, partisan propaganda ads featuring the Premier of this province.

The news media should be outraged by this. The news media, which see this happening and see the effect that it can have on the debate, should be outraged by this. I think some of them recognize that, but let's remember, the owners of the networks themselves are going to be financial beneficiaries of this.

We have another problem that we confront in dealing with issues of the day, because I think it's important to have equal advantage for opposition and government. I don't deny the government the opportunity to make its case when it goes out into the interviews in the hallways, when it goes on television on free-time broadcasts or when it subjects itself to interviews. Those are fine. That's equal. The opposition can do the same and the people can make their choice. That's the way it should be in our democratic system. But you are bringing about a very unfair advantage to one point of view, and you're doing it with simplistic and simple television ads.

The person watching the hockey game, who may have watched a bit of the 6 o'clock news, wonders: "What is all this that's happening out there? It sounds complicated. Yes, I know my local municipal politicians, whom the Premier calls whiners, are complaining and saying the property taxes are going to increase as the government dumps more responsibilities on local taxpayers, and he refers to them as whiners when they say it."

So they see that out there and they wonder what is going on. Then they turn on the television set and they see Mike Harris, and in a very simplistic message he reassures them: "Well, here's some wires and they're all mixed up. We're going to straighten them out."

Second, he turns around and says in the classroom, "Look, we're going to fix the education system."

Now if the ads in education or in health said it is wise for young people to get a shot, a vaccination for measles, that's quite legitimate. If it is advertising tenders for the government, that's quite legitimate. There are a lot of things that government does that are quite legitimate, such as when they advertise that a committee hearing is taking place in the Legislature and you're welcome to make submissions. All of that is acceptable, so please don't get the idea that I think or anybody else thinks there aren't areas where governments should invest funds for the purpose of informing.

The difference is these are self-serving, clearly partisan propaganda ads being paid for by all the people in the province, so when they see Mike Harris on television in one of those ads, they should know that they are paying for it -- and we're seeing those now in education as well.

What it does is cloud the issues. There are some interesting issues to debate. In fairness, the government has an opportunity to make its case, and it may be that in some instances the case the government makes will be accepted by the population and will be valid. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that, but you simplify it to such an extent that you eliminate that kind of debate. That debate doesn't take place.

If there's a good, solid debate in this House or on a public platform that deals with the actual issues and you win, well, good for you. That's democracy, and I applaud you for that. That happens from time to time. The opposition isn't always going to be accepted in its viewpoint by the public. But when you simply use these self-serving, blatantly partisan ads to simplify the issues so much that you really don't deal with them seriously, I think democracy loses in that case.

If you can win legitimately, that's fine. I accept that. In each election we all accept the fact that there is a result. When John Turner lost the federal election in 1984 and they interviewed him after and they said, "What is your reaction to this?" he said, "The people have spoken, and in a democracy the people are always right."

The reason for that is that we go by numbers and if sufficient people vote for a particular party and elect that government, then that's the way democracy works. I respect that; I respect those results.

But what I don't respect is the oversimplification of these issues. For instance, if you go to people and say, "If you go to a combined school board, you're going to save money because you'll have one administration and you'll have one this and one that," it sounds reasonable and it sounds plausible, and in fact there may be instances where that might actually be the case.

But what you're saying is: "We want to show people that we're going to have fewer politicians and fewer administrators and so on, so we're going to do this right across the province regardless of the consequences." What you do is you save either no money or a minuscule amount of money and you take the decision-making away from the local people.

Let me tell you what the Conservative Party used to stand for. If somebody asked, "What does the Conservative Party stand for in this province?" -- again I'll go to the Robarts days, the Davis days -- they stood for local input and local government. That's what they stood for in those days. I could always say that of them. They could accuse the other parties, in fact, of being a little bit of centralizers in those days. I think the one thing they had going for them, if they had nothing else, was that attachment to local community. When Premier Davis established the education system as it is, he allowed for the kind of local input that's going to disappear with this.

Sure, you'll have fewer trustees, and the people from certain groups will write in and say, "Hurray for the government; we've got fewer politicians," and you'll save a few thousand dollars. But what you will lose is the ability of people to have direct access in a meaningful way, through elected representatives, to the education system.

Now we have county boards; we currently have county boards. At least now the town of Grimsby has representation on the Lincoln County Board of Education, and Niagara-on-the-Lake and Lincoln and St Catharines itself and West Lincoln. You have that kind of representation. It's going to disappear because there are going to be so few people on the board of education. As I say, the Reformers out there, the Reform Party, will applaud you. There will be so few people that those communities won't have that access to education. Coming from a large city, perhaps I should cheer that. Perhaps our city can predominate; perhaps we can get our way. But it's not fair to the people in the other area.

While you're listening to the applause from those who think, automatically, that if you have fewer representatives elected you're better off, you should know that you're removing that kind of direct access to elected people, because they are elected and they are accountable. If I don't like what they do, at the end of their term of office I can vote for someone else. If I like what they do, I send them back. But at least I know I have people that I can talk to on these boards of education.

All I'm asking, which I don't see in this bill, is that you don't just do it ideologically because it sounds good to say there are fewer politicians or fewer school boards so it's better. Really carefully look at it, and if there is a substantial saving without the loss of local autonomy somewhere, you're quite welcome to move there. I think you would have a pretty good consensus of support. But when you just holus-bolus across the province, because you've got a right-wing Minister of Education and a right-wing Premier and, worse, right-wing people who aren't even elected writing your policies and making that case, I think that's extremely unfortunate that this happens.

I suspect there are some moderate members of the Conservative Party, even some who are in the House today, who in their heart of hearts believe what I'm saying and know that what I'm saying rings true, even some who have worked for previous Conservative members and who are Conservatives with compassion, who are true commonsense Conservatives; the best word, the "commonsense."

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: But now we have the Reform right-wingers like the member for Etobicoke-Humber, who sits there and barks right-wing epithets left and right, and others.

I look, for instance, at the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is here this afternoon. She was the chair of I believe the Waterloo board of education. The word I heard when she was the chair and other governments were in power was that she did a good job. They said: "You know, Elizabeth Witmer is a Conservative, but she's a good person. She believes in the education system." And here she is today in the House, part of a rabidly right-wing government that I can't believe she supports in its education policy.

I remember my good friend, Dianne Cunningham, the member for London North, having her feet cut off at the ankles by the Premier one day. I think it speaks of what you people are all about today. She came to St Catharines as the education critic. She spoke to the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. In fact I introduced her that night -- it was a non-partisan night -- and I was very complimentary because I thought Dianne had a lot to contribute to education as an opposition critic. I happened to be a guest there the same night and I introduced her, and she gave a good speech.

Not everybody agreed with everything she said, but she was moderate, she was reasonable, she was commonsense and she had a lot of empathy for the people who deliver education on the front line.

Unfortunately, the same day the Premier was in the city, but he wasn't speaking to the public school teachers' federation, he was speaking to the Rotary Club, and the message was far different for the Rotary Club than it was for these other people. Dianne Cunningham had the Conservative blueprint for education and she presented what she thought was the Conservative policy. I thought she was moderate and I thought she made a good case. I didn't necessarily agree with everything she said, but I thought she presented well for the Conservative Party that I knew.

But that same day the Premier was there with those little asides about "those people in education, those teachers" and all of this, and of course he got applause from certain people -- not everybody in that group, but certain people -- who don't like people in the public sector, who think that people in the public sector are useless to our society.

Dianne Cunningham, the member for London North, represented that day the Conservative Party I know and have respected; though I've been in opposition to it, I have respected it. But Premier Harris, as leader of the Conservative Party, represented the new, rabidly right-wing Reform Party and its attitude.

That's what's reflected in this bill. It's not that everything you do in education is wrong. Some of it came from some commissions and some of it you have seen other governments involved in, so not everything you do is wrong. It's just that it's so vicious today and you're moving so rapidly and without looking at the ramifications of what you're doing.

I lament the fact that we have this legislation before us. I know there are people out there afraid now, people who have served for a long time. I know there are young teachers out there who are eager to work with young people. It's a challenge, I'll tell you, a lot tougher challenge today than it was before, because there are many more difficulties that the students experience today coming into the education system and it's a much more complex job to have.

These people are eager out there to work in this system, to work with our young people, to make them productive and good people in our society as they come through our education system, to foster a positive self-image, to look to the future with some optimism. Instead we see a government that simply is going to slash wildly.

While you've taken the education system off the local property tax -- by the way, that's something that's going to be pretty stable, if not declining because of declining enrolment, and you've dumped on to the municipalities areas that are either uncertain or that are bound to cost a lot more money. Then the Premier, when the local people complain, calls them whiners. I think the people are not whiners when they complain locally; they are very legitimate in what they're saying.

This is all in the context of the hospitals, just as the 6,000 people in Grimsby, the 3,000 people in Fort Erie, the 2,000 in Port Colborne and the hundreds and thousands across the Niagara Peninsula are protesting over the loss of their hospitals because they know the Premier said, "I can guarantee I have no plans to close hospitals." They remember that. I asked the Premier that question this afternoon. I didn't need a supplementary. The Premier gave me the answer. He's not going to keep that promise, and he's not going to keep the promise not to adversely impact the classroom with these cuts either.

Why are we doing it? For a tax cut. I know that's popular.

Listen, if you ask people out there, "Would you like a tax cut?" most of them will say, "Yes, I'd love a tax cut." But if you said to them, "You're going to lose your hospitals and your education system in the classroom itself is going to be adversely impacted and you're going to lose a lot of service, and when you travel on the road you're not going to have the same degree of service in winter maintenance and a number of other services," almost invariably those people will say, "In that case, I want you to spend the money efficiently, I want you to spend it effectively, but no, we don't need this tax cut," particularly where you're going to have to borrow $5 billion a year and add to the debt, because you have interest on that, add to the debt to give a tax cut.

The very rich will like it, because they're going to get a lot of money; 60% of it is going to go to the very rich people in our province, so they may applaud, and they will be able to buy their services.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: What the member for Etobicoke-Humber, who interjects, is really saying is that there should be one rule for the rich and the privileged and one rule for the rest. That's exactly what it's about it, you see, because rich and privileged people can buy themselves a good education. They can go to private schools, they can go to private hospitals, and if necessary they can go to the United States if they need the service. All those people out there don't mind this. They can take that tax cut and spend it as they see fit. The member from Rexdale smiles, because I think he knows in his heart of hearts that I'm right when I say that.

How is this debate to come about when you're running television ads at the taxpayers' expense, costing millions of dollars? How are we supposed to have a proper debate in this province when Conrad Black owns 58 of 104 major newspapers? He was here. He was here for the swearing-in of the Lieutenant Governor, the friend of the Conservative Party, Conrad Black. What is he doing in the various newspapers now? He's firing people out the door and putting right-wing ideologues in. They just hired two people at the Ottawa Citizen, I saw the other day.

Here's the qualifications: One is 28 years old; previous experience, two years as a researcher for Mike Harris and, previous to that, the Fraser Institute. Then I saw another one come in: two years' previous experience with the Reform Party as a researcher and, previously, the Fraser Institute. Conrad Black and his friend Radler, his henchman who does all the work, they say: "Oh, we don't bother with that. We're just running the business end."

That's why we can't have a proper debate on the key issues of the day, because you are robbing the airwaves from the people and you have Conrad Black doing your bidding elsewhere.

This bill is bad policy and it should be defeated, and we intend to oppose it in our party.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I enjoyed listening to the dissertation from the member for St Catharines. He always brings an interesting point of view to the debate.

What I was really pleased for him to speak about is what the real agenda is in what the Conservative government is doing here. Let's not kid ourselves. The province is taking over the financing of public education. Why are they doing that? Very simply, it's because they want to get their hands on the entire pie so that down the road they're able to make the fundamental changes to education that they want to make in the province.

If school boards were to control a certain portion of the funding and school boards were to have some political control over education, the province would have problems trying to make changes like introducing private charter schools in Ontario. The government would have problems in introducing a whole bunch of initiatives to privatize services within the school boards if they didn't control the schools entirely.

That's why the government is going out and saying, "We want to take over education and take over the financing." They are doing it because the Conservative ideologues around Mike Harris and his caucus are saying, "We want to take over education because we don't like our present system of public education." The government wants to change it so that it fits its view about what education should be: a good system of education partly funded by the public sector but offset by the private sector where rich kids can go, and another system for the rest of us. I'm not an alarmist in saying that is exactly where this government is going with public education.

The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Education and Training, upon being sworn into cabinet, said, "I want to create a crisis within education so that I can effect the kinds of changes I want to effect in the Ministry of Education so that it fits the Conservative ideological dream," which is a system that is publicly funded but augmented by the private sector so that they can run private charter schools so that kids with money get a good education and that kids who don't get a not very good education. I, as a New Democrat, won't stand for that.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): One of the things my colleague the member for St Catharines pointed out in his very important remarks on this bill, which I think should be noted, is the unprecedented advertising campaign that the people of this province and, I understand now, internationally will be subjected to.

Never before in the history of this province has the Premier gone on television in ads paid for by the provincial government which are clearly partisan propaganda and which are clearly designed to lull the people of this province into a false sense of security. The ads, and I have seen them and I agree with my colleague, do not give anybody a real understanding of the policies this government is proposing, of what it is doing. The ads are simplistic and they run on the principle that if you keep it simple, people will respond and feel comfortable.

That runs contrary to all the things I believe in. I believe that part of participatory democracy and the democratic process requires that people have facts, that they have information and that they are given that information in a fair and impartial way so that they can be encouraged to participate in the debate and give consent to the government for its plans.

It is wrong. It is absolutely contrary to all the beliefs of encouraging individual citizens to participate in democratic debate when what you do is a deliberate attempt to lull people into believing that they have nothing to be concerned about.

I find the ads, which are being paid for by the people of this province, to be an offence to democracy and an insult to the people of this province. I don't believe they will be fooled.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): As usual the member for St Catharines speaks with great passion. I know how anxious he was to speak this afternoon. He wanted to get on the record on this issue and speak to Bill 104. He knows how strong the opposition is out in the province among teacher groups, among trustee groups and particularly among parent groups to what this government is doing with this bill.

It is extremely important, I think, for us to take heed of the concerns the member for St Catharines has raised because he is reflecting what most of us are hearing in our constituency offices from people who are there.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): That's not a fact.

Mrs Boyd: There are those among the members of the opposition who claim that's not the case. I can assure the member for Brant-Haldimand that this is the case in my riding. The member for St Catharines is well aware that it's the case in his.

This is not an esoteric argument about cutting bureaucracy. What happens in Bill 104 is that the power of the remaining bureaucracy will be enormous, because the only information that so few trustees will be able to get will depend entirely on the willingness and ability of the bureaucrats to bring that information forward.

Their ability to represent their constituents -- the students, the parents, the community members -- is greatly lessened because their numbers will be lessened and because the way they are going to be elected, given the kinds of limitations this bill puts on them, is definitely counter to the kind of representation that communities have had in the governance of education in the past.

The member for St Catharines has certainly brought a number of issues, including the issue of false advertising, to our attention this afternoon, and I commend him.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to respond to the member for St Catharines's comments on Bill 104. I was caught by his comments with respect to the member for Waterloo North, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, and the member for London North, the Honourable Dianne Cunningham. Indee