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

June 16, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L205 - Mon 16 Jun 1997 / Lun 16 Jun 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE

MARATHON STUDENT GOVERNMENT

KEN ARMSTRONG

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

MISSISSAUGA INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL

PETERBOROUGH CIVIC HOSPITAL

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

ONTARIO WORKS

CHEMICAL SPRAYING AT ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

SPECIAL EDUCATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EMPLOYEES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

WETLANDS

VULNERABLE ADULTS

SCHOOL BOARDS

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

TFO

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

CHILD CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINICS

GAMBLING

TVONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise today to inform members of the Legislature about a very important campaign going on in Thunder Bay. "Raise Values Above Violence" is sponsored by the Catholic Women's League of the diocese of Thunder Bay, which has been studying the effect of violence on youth. This group is carrying on the valuable work started by the Thunder Bay Television Advisory Council's "Speak Out Against Violence" campaign.

The underlying premise of the campaign envisions values and violence as opposite ends of a seesaw: as one goes up, the other falls, hence the campaign slogan, "Raise Values Above Violence."

According to the Canadian Council on Social Development, the reality is that while awareness of violence in the lives of young people has increased greatly in the last decade, many of us still underestimate the problem and its far-reaching effects. We know that violence has serious effects on the short- and long-term health of young people, on their development and on their ability to reach their potential.

By promoting values above violence, we can all come to see that our lives can be lived more safely, happily and with kindness as its own reward.

I want to mention also the campaign's mascot, Kicoo the bear. Kicoo stands for "kindness in caring of others," a moniker we could all stand to remember in our daily lives. I wanted to introduce Kicoo to the members of the House, Speaker, but I recognize that you might have ruled me out of order. But Kicoo is a wonderful mascot.

Finally, I want to commend the Catholic Women's League and Thunder Bay Television for their efforts in addressing the chronic problem of violence for our youth. I invite other communities across the province to join this growing campaign, and I offer to put them in touch with the wonderful people behind the campaign in Thunder Bay.

MARATHON STUDENT GOVERNMENT

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): This past Friday the entire administration of the town of Marathon was turned over to its young people. Some 24 positions, each and every one of them pivotal to the efficient operation of the town, were staffed by boys and girls from grades 5 and 6.

Children from Margaret Twomey, Holy Saviour and Val des Bois elementary schools competed in educational projects organized by the school staff. The successful students were placed in management positions. They included mayor of Marathon, OPP detachment commander, fire chief, school principals, mine manager, hospital administrator, ambulance attendant, media corespondent and editor, bank manager, director of education, town chief administrative officer, park warden, town engineer and postmaster.

The Marathon detachment of the OPP, those men and women, coordinated and helped in those efforts, and I wish to take this opportunity to commend them.

All the participants felt that their time at the top, one day today and many in the future, was most rewarding indeed.

I was there and felt most honoured. I had a great time, and they made it that way. I thank you and I wish them well.

KEN ARMSTRONG

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I'm honoured to rise in the House today to congratulate Ken Armstrong, a great citizen of Peterborough and good friend, on being recently named the Peterborough Volunteer of the Year.

Over 1,000 people, including 392 award recipients, gathered last week at the city's annual civic awards. This event was a time to honour those who have made a commitment to our great community.

A native of Cornwall, Ken moved to Peterborough in 1961 to teach high school at Adam Scott. After retiring from teaching, Ken decided to serve the community in many other ways. He went on to host a local public affairs show on Rogers cable 10, he was pivotal in making the Showplace Peterborough theatre a reality, and more recently he co-chaired the fund-raising group that was instrumental in developing the Evinrude Centre, a state-of-the-art community/sports facility in our city.

This type of volunteer effort is vital to our communities if they are to remain strong and active, and Ken Armstrong has truly demonstrated that commitment to the people of Peterborough.

On behalf of my constituents, my deepest and sincerest congratulations to Ken Armstrong. His tireless efforts have truly made a positive difference in the lives of Peterborough's citizens.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today the Harris government will try to impose on the Legislature a measure that will make the trains run on time: a motion that will establish what will amount to a parliamentary dictatorship.

Since taking office in 1995, the Harris regime has never been satisfied with democracy, with having to take the proper time to deal with its radical, revolutionary legislative agenda, or the accountability that comes with assuming the reins of power.

The unelected backroom boys who hold the real power in this right-wing regime are impatient with the pace at which this revolution is being implemented and annoyed at the thought that the opposition could slow down the government in its rush to change Ontario to the liking of the very rich and privileged. They resent the democratic process and they're determined to crush those who would dare to question their wisdom.

The government will try to portray its procedural rule changes as reasonable and sensible, but make no mistake about it: They are designed to squelch all opposition to their drastic changes. Any power the opposition had to moderate the pace of change, to ensure adequate debate and discussion of legislation and motions will be severely reduced or eliminated. We will have in Ontario what will amount to a virtual dictatorship.

The role of this House will become that of a rubber stamp for the Premier's backroom advisers. With severe restrictions on public debate and discussion, the people of the province will not be aware of the consequences of this government's actions.

Most people have asked that the Mike Harris government move more slowly, more cautiously and less drastically. Instead they are determined to make the trains run on time, but at what price?

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On Saturday afternoon, I joined a gathering organized by a group of citizens of Metropolitan Toronto called the Rocket Riders, who are advocating continued support for public transit in Metropolitan Toronto.

Their concern and mine is a provision of the new draft Municipal Act the government has released, particularly

section 10, which says that municipalities can't stop private companies from setting up shop to compete with the TTC. Some people might say, "What's wrong with that?" Competition in their minds might be a good thing. The problem is that when Joe's Private Van Service, for example, runs along Queen Street scooping up passengers, it takes away the revenues the TTC needs to fund transit services that don't make money. The main routes would get chaotic, unregulated service; the suburbs, the less-traffic areas, would get no service at all. That means that tens of thousands of hardworking people would have a very hard time getting to work.

There is a very remote chance that this may simply have been a drafting error. I hope, perhaps against all hope, that's what it is, because the discussion paper talks about sorting out the responsibilities between the provincial and the municipal level in terms of regulating. But as it is written now, this would mean the end of public transportation in Metropolitan Toronto and indeed throughout the province.

I want to call upon this government to rethink its position if it is going in this area, and to correct the mistake if it is simply a drafting error.

MISSISSAUGA INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It is with pleasure that I stand today to announce a very special event that will be taking place in our great city of Mississauga on July 11, 12 and 13 at the Meadowvale Theatre and West Credit Secondary School and park. Following in a tradition that began last year, the Mississauga International Children's Festival will bring joy to many children between the ages of one and 12. These magical days will be filled with fabulous children's entertainment, including a giant puppet parade, theatre, storytelling and much more.

I am also proud to announce that a portion of the gate receipts at this year's festival will be directed to the paediatric units of the Credit Valley and Mississauga General hospitals. Our appreciation goes to the many volunteers, the many people who have dedicated their time and energy to provide a creative and fun experience for children in Mississauga.

PETERBOROUGH CIVIC HOSPITAL

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today to report to this House about the enormity of the error and the problems created by the Minister of Health in connection with his comments about Peterborough Civic Hospital. We find now in that community that they have united to demanded an apology from the minister for the minister having accused Civic Hospital of wheeling bedridden patients out of their room and into hallways to show television cameras that the hospital was underfunded.

For the minister, not even being minister at the time, to have called the Deputy Minister of Health and told her there were a whole pile of empty rooms -- the newspaper, the medical staff, people from outside in the community can't find those empty rooms because they're not there. The Peterborough Examiner said it would take the cooperation of the entire hospital, a conspiracy of silence, with the participation of the media, and not just television but the print media who were there for days and weeks before, of the whole community, who have had these real concerns about a hospital that isn't working because of the funding cuts this government has made.

Rather than deal with that, the minister has made people like Dr Allan Thompson, the president of the medical staff at the Civic; Dean MacDonald, the executive director of the hospital; and Lynne Douglas, the emergency room nurse, feel it was their responsibility.

Minister, you must either resign or apologize for those ridiculous and insulting comments. As the newspaper suggests, the minister's lips should be sutured for the kind of insult he is conferring on the people of Ontario and the people of Peterborough.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I rise today to put on the record some very serious concerns I have about what is happening in the health care system in our province. I speak as a former Minister of Health; I speak as a member of provincial Parliament representing a number of people who have raised concerns with respect to Wellesley Hospital and Women's College Hospital and Doctors Hospital; and I speak also as a woman, as a user of our health care system.

I feel so much trepidation as I watch this government march down the road of this arm's-length process, handing over to the hospital restructuring commission all these decisions based on numbers, inadequate numbers at that, without looking at the communities served and the special nature of those services.

I want to talk specifically about Women's College Hospital. It is a crime to see that group continuing to bend over backwards to meet the minister's needs, to be flexible, to show that they are going to try and meet all the government's concerns -- but to stress to the government that we can no longer have adequate concern and consideration paid to women's health if we do not have separate governance structures to ensure that focus is clear, to ensure that is maintained.

It is not good enough to combine it under the governance structures of Sunnybrook and say: "Trust us. It will continue." As they transfer those services -- and you look at the maternal and newborn and other services the government seems to be sanctioning -- it makes you think it's nothing more than our reproductive health --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Wellington.

ONTARIO WORKS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The government was elected with a mandate to reform Ontario's social assistance programs. In an effort to help people on social assistance enter the workforce, the county of Wellington has recently completed its Ontario Works business plan.

Just today we received word that the provincial government has approved the plan and implementation is set to begin in July. Under the program, able-bodied people receiving social assistance will be required to accept offers of community placement, training or job placement as an ongoing condition of their eligibility. Groups like the disabled and seniors will be exempt from the requirements but may take advantage of these programs on a voluntary basis.

My constituents in Wellington believe that people who are physically able to work should be working. It is a fact that the vast majority of people on welfare would prefer to work if given the opportunity. However, many people become trapped on the welfare treadmill, and to get off it they need support and positive encouragement so they can believe in themselves again. They need help to gain that first foothold so they can climb the employment ladder to permanent jobs that pay well.

The county's plan on this subject speaks eloquently to these objectives. It states:

"Ontario Works attempts to reform Ontario's social assistance system constructively and has the potential to be a powerful and positive force in the lives of social assistance recipients.... The purpose of this plan is to design a social assistance system which will ultimately reduce the need for assistance by providing individuals and families the resources to become self-sufficient."

In closing, I'd like to extend my very best wishes to Ontario Works participants as they seize this opportunity --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Wellington, thank you.

CHEMICAL SPRAYING AT ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

Ms Churley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe my principles as a member of this House have been breached, and indeed I believe the safety of the public visiting our Legislature is at issue. I'll take a minute or so to explain.

Like many of us, after a long winter I look forward to the warmer weather. On the rare occasion that time permits, I like to eat my lunch on the lawn or just sit quietly for a few moments. Not until this week did I learn that to do so could be endangering my health.

It's come to my attention that the previous weekend the lawns around the building were sprayed with a substance called Par 3, which is a combination of 2,4-D, dicamba and mecoprop. Some of these chemicals have been taken off the market in other jurisdictions because they have ended up in the drinking water supply.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Riverdale, I'm not demeaning your point of privilege at all, but the point is simply that it isn't a point of privilege here. That is not an issue that is privilege in the Legislature.

I appreciate the fact that you have some concerns with respect to the spraying of the lawns. You expressed those concerns to my office. I did not know that had taken place, and I think we've given you an undertaking that it will not happen again. If you would like to meet on this further, I'll be happy to meet further, but with respect to privilege in this building and a privileged point of order, I don't see it as a point of privilege. It's administration at best.

Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, to continue quickly, it's also about the lack of signage. I believe it is a breach of privilege of every member in this House and the visitors who come by, when in my understanding the lawns are under the jurisdiction of the legislative precinct and that decision is made on that level. It came to my attention when I was outside that the lawn had been sprayed over the weekend and the signage had been taken down.

I'm expressing two concerns:

(1) I want you to look into why the signage had been removed, and (2) whether all our policies regarding spraying are being taken into consideration.

The Speaker: You know what, member for Riverdale? I'm having a very difficult time finding a head of privilege this would fall under. Having said that, I am not going to demean your point of privilege. If you would like to speak with me at any time after today -- I will give you my undertaking that the chemical spraying won't happen again; I think we've committed to that to you personally -- and if you want to pursue this line of questioning at a later date, that's fine. With the greatest of respect, there is no head of privilege I can find for that particular issue.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is this the same point of privilege?

Ms Lankin: It is with respect to what constitutes a point of privilege.

The Speaker: Okay, I will hear the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I'll be very brief, because I think you have indicated a course of resolution to the concern the member for Riverdale has raised and I think she will follow up on that with you.

I only raise that for your consideration to look at, because I think the member for Riverdale did have a legitimate point of privilege. I think it's been taken care of; we don't need to belabour the point. But I would hope the ruling you just made would not be a precedent in the future which would prohibit us from bringing forward what I think are very legitimate concerns.

The Speaker: I will say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, access, in my opinion, may always be a point of privilege. Access to this building by members of Parliament is in fact I think a point of privilege.

Cleanliness, spraying of the lawns, if you could cite me examples where I have ruled they are points of privilege, I'd like to see them. What I did at those times and today -- I understand your concern; it may not be a point of privilege -- I'll deal with that issue as I see it.

As far as the other issues you address, I always think access is a point of privilege; I'm really not sure the others fall under the heading of a point of privilege.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On Thursday afternoon, as a member of this House, I felt that my privileges were violated by the language used by the member for Welland-Thorold. In my 12 years in this chamber, I have heard frustration expressed on both sides of the chamber to a degree, but I have never heard, nor has anyone I've spoken to in this chamber, the kind of profanity repeated and repeated by the member for Welland-Thorold as he attacked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism in this chamber. I ask for your opinion as to whether that is a breach of privilege.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): First of all, it would not be a point of privilege; probably better, it would be a point of order. As a point of order it has been dealt with. It was dealt with on Thursday, and I see no reason to pursue the matter any further today.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I realize you ruled under 23(

k) on the event of Thursday. However, I would like to go back beyond Thursday. Something that has occurred more often and increasingly in this House is the use of profanity, street language. This House is supposed to be a model of decorum. We are supposed to set an example --

The Speaker: Member for Kitchener, with respect, you'll know I just ruled on the point of order offered up by the member for Mississauga South. I want to say there is no timeliness in your standing in your place and outlining your concerns with respect to language. I suggest to the member for Kitchener, if you have concerns about language, the moment that language is used is the time for you to stand up and raise your point of order. This does not become a debating society where we cite examples of months or years ago.

If you have concerns, the time to raise them is at that time, and if you raise them at any time after that, it is not a timely point of order and in fact would not be considered to be in order.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a midwestern parliamentary delegation headed by Representative David Adkins and Senator Bob Cupp. Please join me in welcoming them. Welcome, gentlemen.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, over the past few days, we've heard quite a bit about your high expectations for Ontario students and the additional responsibilities you'll be giving to teachers to ensure that they are ready for this September's new curriculum. But I want to talk for a moment about your role in all this, and in particular the fact that you are failing to recognize that anybody who knows anything about this matter understands that if our students are going to do better, it's important they start at the earliest possible opportunity, and of course that means junior kindergarten.

You have a role here in helping our students to meet the grade. My question for you quite simply is, given that junior kindergarten is an absolute essential today to ensure that students are ready to learn, why don't we have junior kindergarten funded in Ontario today?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): This may be startling news to the Leader of the Opposition. We do.

Mr McGuinty: Perhaps it will come with some shock to the minister to be informed that 25 school boards to date, 30,000 students in Ontario, have been denied junior kindergarten on his watch because of your cuts to funding.

Minister, are you going to assume your role and reinstate funding for junior kindergarten in Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Just to make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition, although I think it's clear to about 12 million other people in Ontario, but it needs to be clarified for you, no one is being denied junior kindergarten in this province as

an act of this government. It simply is not happening. In fact, this government is funding junior kindergarten programs where boards have decided to offer them at the same rate we're funding senior kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2, grade 3. I have made this clear to your education critic in the past. Perhaps you should consult with her and get the facts straight on this.

Second, as far as high standards in this province, as far as having our students be where they should be, which is the head of the class, not behind students in other provinces but right there at the head, we have made some vital steps towards that goal, including the announcements last Friday about a tough standard in curriculum. You could have done that seven years ago, but instead you chose to condemn those students to a substandard level of education. We won't tolerate it. You did.

Mr McGuinty: It's perfectly clear that the minister luxuriates in this language of tough love and tough standards and he applies them to everybody but himself. Let me make it clear what you've done to Ontario students on your watch. So far, 25 school boards have been forced to cut junior kindergarten; 23 boards have been forced to reduce special education programs; seven boards have cut library services. Painful as it may be to realize, Minister, you are going to have to play a role to help our students learn. You cannot continue to throw up obstacles in their way. Otherwise, what you are doing is effectively writing off our students and condemning them to failure.

If you're really serious about our kids succeeding in school, then why won't you as minister assume your responsibility and do the kinds of things that are essential to help them meet with success, starting with junior kindergarten?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Once again, it's becoming embarrassing. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand. We fund junior kindergarten currently. We will continue to do so. What perhaps is confusing to the Leader of the Opposition is that we're keeping an election promise and he's not used to that, having been a Liberal most of his life.

Let me tell you this: We have done more to improve education in this province in the last two years than the two previous governments did in their entire term, including committing the province to funding education so that every student in this province will have an opportunity for a high-quality education, including having curriculum that meets the needs of our students and, finally, having our students being able to outperform students in other provinces -- finally and at long last.

The legacy of your government is very clear in Ontario: It's students in the middle of the pack in terms of test results. We won't tolerate that. We're going to have a system that meets our students' needs and we're going to have it very quickly. I and my colleagues are proud of those changes, proud that we've had the courage and the vision to put them in place here in Ontario.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the same minister, the minister who has denied junior kindergarten to 30,000 Ontario students. Minister, I want to talk about 357 students in particular living in the Ottawa-Carleton area who are attending at present the McHugh school offered in eastern Ontario to those students who have very special problems, special learning disabilities, severe emotional, psychological and behavioural problems.

Apparently, there is some fight ongoing between your government and the Ottawa Board of Education about some amount in the range of $31 million, and I want to set that aside for a moment, because that's not what the parents and the students are concerned about. They want to know whether they're going to be able to attend the McHugh school programs in September of this year. All I need is a yes or no from you, Minister.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Yes.

Mr McGuinty: Just so the minister is brought up to speed on this, I spoke with the principal of McHugh school this morning. He tells me that his teachers, as of 5 o'clock today, will begin to accept offers to work with other school boards because he cannot offer to them a guarantee that his program will be funded by you. Stand up right now, Minister, and provide us with the assurance that this program is going to be funded, no ifs, ands or buts, and tell us when the funding is going to be delivered.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It obviously confuses the Leader of the Opposition if he can't read his notes verbatim. Perhaps next time I'll wait to say yes until your third question so it won't get you out of sync. The answer is yes.

The Ottawa board, which has been providing these

section 27 services to young people in that Ottawa area --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just a minute, Minister. Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, you must withdraw that comment, the dictator comment.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Since I want to speak later on this afternoon, I will withdraw the comment, although I may --

The Speaker: You know full well that "withdraw" is the only word I'm looking for and anything else is extraneous. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The grace of the member for St Catharines is obvious again today. As you will probably understand if you look into this issue a little bit, you'll find there was an agreement made under the social contract, by the previous government, with the Ottawa board. The Ottawa board has recently advised us, or at least I'm told they've recently advised the ministry, that they may shirk their responsibility to these young people. I can assure you today that the province will not. The province will make sure the programs for those people are funded next September. You have that assurance from me today.

Mr McGuinty: The agreement signed between the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the McHugh school was signed by them in early April. That was submitted to you about April 15. To this point in time it has not been signed by you or your representative, and until that is done and a copy is returned to the authorities in education in Ottawa, they have no assurance whatsoever.

Parents don't want to hear about the social contract, parents don't want to hear about some ongoing fight between you and the Ottawa Board of Education, and 357 students want to know that in September they'll be able to return to class. When will that agreement be signed and when will it be sent back to Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I hate to do this to the member for Ottawa Centre, but he said on March 8, 1996, about this change, about the social contract, about the movement of funds to the Ottawa board, "In terms of fairness, if all boards are having to rejig their systems in order to contribute, it seems to me you've got to have all board participate." That's what he said about this.

The people in Ottawa can be assured of this: We will not allow those children to suffer. We will make sure those programs are offered and we will review the suggestion that was made by the separate school board and the public school board and we will respond to that in the very near future. But the people of Ontario, particularly the people of Ottawa, can rest assured we will provide the funding for those students. They have my assurance and this government's assurance of that today.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Hearings begin today on Bill 99, your legislation attacking injured workers and the workers' compensation system. It's bad enough that literally over 1,000 people will not be heard at these hearings because of the limitations you've placed on them. But what's even worse is you've started to implement your privatization scheme for workers' compensation even before these hearings. Your government contracted with the consultants KPMG and KPMG came back and gave you a scenario for privatizing some of the WCB services. You started to do that.

Minister, do your government's privatization guidelines and your guidelines to protect against conflict of interest apply to KPMG in the privatization of WCB services?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): It's extremely important to remember that whether you call it privatization or contracting out, certainly some of that was begun under your government. As you well know, there are services that are now offered within the vocational rehabilitation program started by yourself where you required the expertise of people outside of WCB. Some of the changes we are continuing to make will again include contracting out of some of the specialized services that are going to be required by the WCB.

Mr Hampton: I asked the minister specifically about KPMG and she struggled hard to avoid answering with respect to KPMG, so let's go back to it. The WCB gave KPMG a contract to plan the overhaul of the board. KPMG drew up a plan including privatizing large chunks of workers' compensation operations. Some parts of that have already been implemented.

The reason I asked you the question, Minister, is this: While KPMG was working for the government and setting up a privatization plan for the WCB, it's now out there saying to people: "Thinking of WCB savings? Think of KPMG." In other words, they have their insider knowledge of how workers' compensation is going to be privatized and they're out there telling employers, "Come and see KPMG if you want the inside track." Minister, do your guidelines for conflict of interest cover KPMG?

Hon Mrs Witmer: In response to the leader of the third party, we have been advised by the senior management at WCB that there is no conflict of interest that exists at the present time.

Mr Hampton: Once again we see this government's standards. It's okay for KPMG to design the privatization of the workers' compensation operations. Then it's okay for them to use that insider information and go out there and talk to private sector employers and say: "If you want the inside word on how things are going to happen at the Workers' Compensation Board, come and talk to us. We've got the inside word. The government gave it to us." This reflects on your government's standards. Let me ask you this: Will you extend the public hearings so these very important issues can be brought up and the public interest, the taxpayers' interest can be protected from your privatization schemes?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm not sure where the leader of the third party is headed, but I simply want to indicate very strongly that the changes we are making to the Workers' Compensation Board are such that the interests of the taxpayers will indeed be protected. We want to ensure there are fair and secure benefits for injured workers in the future. We also want to make sure that employers in this province pay assessment rates that are competitive and will continue to encourage people to invest and create new jobs in the province of Ontario. So we are protecting the taxpayers' money.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Minister of Labour, I don't see any protection of the public interest. I see KPMG making a profit here off your privatization scheme.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A similar question to the Chair of Management Board: Your privatization agenda I believe reaches right into your own office. Last week we received word that Mac Penney, your executive assistant, is going to work for Government Policy Consultants, a prominent lobby firm. Our interest is this: We want to ensure that people who work in the public sector on Monday, and who are negotiating privatization deals on Monday for the government, don't jump over to the private sector company that they negotiated with on Tuesday or Wednesday, or don't jump over and then start to consult in the private sector on the deal they just worked out in the public sector.

Minister, can you confirm your own executive assistant is leaving to join Government Policy Consultants?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): My employees, government employees, have every right to seek alternative employment. What a particular individual will do surely is not at the dictates of the leader of the third party, as much as the leader of the third party may wish to buttonhole individual employees.

If one of my employees chooses to leave, I can tell you this: The conflict-of-interest principles we have established will be fully employed. The Integrity Commissioner will be asked to investigate and review the matter and ensure there is no conflict if any one of my employees or any of the employees involved with any of the ministers were to leave. Exactly the same procedure would take place to ensure that. The Integrity Commissioner would ensure there is a fair process and one that involves no conflict of interest.

Mr Hampton: I take it you are acknowledging that your executive assistant is leaving now to join the private sector firm. Your executive assistant, Mac Penney, would have had a hand in all of the privatizations you've undertaken. You've privatized water testing labs, cleaning services, mail room services, GO Temp, the government's temporary help agency, and more and you're not finished. The motto seems to be: If it moves, privatize it.

Minister, if you're indeed interested in protecting the public interest, will you make public all the privatization files Mac Penney worked on in your office so taxpayers can judge for themselves what kind of insider knowledge Mr Penney will take with him to his position at GPC? Will you make that information available?

Hon David Johnson: It's interesting that alternative service delivery is not new, yet previous governments -- the one the leader of the third party was involved with -- did nothing to introduce conflict-of-interest guidelines, were in office for five years, did absolutely nothing. This government on April 23 brought in conflict-of-interest guidelines, and I can assure the leader of the third party that any individual who leaves this government, in the employ of a member of the cabinet, for example, such as myself, will be subject to a review by the Integrity Commissioner.

The Integrity Commissioner will determine that there's no conflict of interest; for example, that the individual is not working on a file for government and then he or she can go to the private sector and work on that same file. As to any firm an individual has had significant dealings with, that individual will not be able to go and work for that private sector firm for at least 12 months.

Mr Hampton: I asked the minister a very clear question. I asked if you would make public the privatization files Mac Penney worked on. A very simple request: Make available to the public the list of privatization files Mac Penney worked on so that members of the public can see for themselves. Members of the public will be able to tell if Mr Penney, when he goes to GPC, is protecting the public interest or is dealing more in enhancing the private interest. That's a simple question.

I asked that question and I ask you now: Table the legislation that you promised, that you said would protect the public interest, because I don't think in any of the examples today you've given us one assurance that the public interest is being served. Show us the files; bring us the legislation. Do the right thing.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Don't take Charles's advice. Don't just slough it off that it's the privacy commissioner, that it's in court. That's what Charles does.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon David Johnson: If the member for Beaches-Woodbine has had her say, what the leader of the third party is saying is he doesn't trust the Integrity Commissioner to do his job. That's exactly what we've set up. The leader of the third party does not trust the Integrity Commissioner.

In the announcement of April 23 we set up a clear process involving the Integrity Commissioner with principles such as: You can't work on a file in government and work on that same file in the private sector; you cannot move from government to the private sector, to any firm with which you've had significant dealings. The Integrity Commissioner is the guardian of that process. I, for one, trust the Integrity Commissioner. I will ensure that the Integrity Commissioner reviews any individual case from my office, as will all the cabinet ministers, and the public will be protected through that process.

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask you about Northwestern General Hospital. As you're aware, Northwestern was one of the hospitals that was in the draft directions from your hospital restructuring commission. It was suggested at that time that the site be closed in 1999. It has already been brought to your attention in this House that Northwestern is being closed in a hurry-up fashion. It'll be shut down by September unless you act.

The outpatient clinics are being closed by the end of June; psychiatric beds are being moved out by the end of June; obstetrics are moving July 15, but not gynaecology; and the entire surgical program is supposed to move in September, which will necessitate the closure of the emergency room.

Minister, you've said earlier that there should be no transfer, you've given no approval for it. It is unknown to the public and unknown to the people in the general area that this is the way we're going to be closing hospitals, and of course it makes a mockery of the hospital restructuring commission because they haven't even given us their final report for Metro.

In the case of Northwestern, you've been aware of the situation. I'd like to ask you today, have you acted on it and have you instructed the board to slow down or to stop this taking down of this hospital in such a hurried-up fashion?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): As I said to the honourable member when he asked this question last, this is not being driven by the Ministry of Health. It is an extremely complicated situation that occurs, of course, during restructurings, when announcements are made. You'll find that Branson, for example, can't get doctors because they're not interested in working there as much as they were in the past because of the interim directives.

What all of us need to see are the final directives from the Health Services Restructuring Commission and then the ministry will be involved. At this point, we're monitoring the situation. That is the best we can do, given that we're in a quasi-legal process and the ministry is not driving this process, the Health Services Restructuring Commission is. We're all waiting for the final directives.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, we're aware when exceptions can be made. We know about that in Burk's Falls; we'll hear about that soon in terms of small rural hospitals. The people served by Northwestern need to know what you're going to do. When you take out gynaecology and you don't take out obstetrics, that means that babies won't be delivered by the doctors who have the children under their care.

There's $20 million in capital that was supposed to go into Humber Memorial Hospital to take over emergency services. None of that has been approved or spent and yet emergencies are going to be shut down to some level of complete confusion. There are orthopaedic surgeons who say Humber hospital is not prepared to take their cases. The speed at which they're moving is dangerous to patient care.

Minister, you have the power, you gave yourself the power under Bill 26 to give directions to hospitals at any time you see fit. For the integrity of the process you spoke about, but more important, for the safety of the patients currently being served in northwest Toronto, will you act and put a stop to this speeded-up closing down of the Northwestern hospital site? Will you do that today?

Hon Mr Wilson: I have acted -- and by the way, those powers weren't contained in Bill 26; they've always been part of the Public Hospitals Act -- long before the member raised this issue in the House. It is a daily management issue for the ministry in terms of making sure there aren't gaps in services.

I remind the honourable member that the building doesn't cure anybody. The programs are moving, many of them intact, to other locations. I tell you that we're doing the very best we can. The board of Northwestern has not in any way abrogated its responsibility, if that's what you're implying. They have a legal responsibility to provide care and that's what they're doing.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is also to the Minister of Health. Statements you've made in the Legislature regarding the fate of Women's College Hospital and women's health services contradict what is actually happening. You indicated to me more than once that the commission has directed that all programs delivered by Women's College Hospital be maintained and enhanced, but that is not what the commission has recommended.

The focus for women's health at Sunnybrook will be on maternal newborn services. The clinical and academic setting for a focus on all aspects of women's health will be lost. All this will be lost because Women's College, regardless of the physical location, will lose its governance structure. It is the governance, direction and focus given to women's health by a board that will be lost.

Minister, if you are really serious about all the services provided by Women's College being maintained and enhanced, will you support the retention of a separate governance structure for Women's College at Sunnybrook? Will you do that today?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The final decision about governance will be made by the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Who are you trying to kid? The chauffeur doesn't decide where to go; the member in the back seat does.

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

Hon Mr Wilson: I would remind the honourable member that in the interim report the commission itself calls for the maintenance and enhancement of programs currently being delivered.

I also remind you that this government has put $10 million into the women's health institute, which is several times more money to be spent on women's health research than is currently spent by Women's College in this province. Their own vice-president of research has applauded the government for doing that and is very much looking forward to the new and exciting things they can do as a program for women's health research to improve the health of women and children in the province.

Ms Churley: You're the same minister who told me that I was breaking the law before for asking you this question. Remember that? The police haven't come to get me yet, but in all seriousness, Women's College Hospital has shown incredible flexibility in determining and trying to figure out a way to meet its needs and the government's needs. All I'm asking you today is to endorse that and let the commission know that you care about women's health beyond our reproductive systems. There's a little bit more to women's health than that.

You stated on April 22 that you supported those objectives, that is, a downtown ambulatory care and sexual assault centre and its own governance. The current proposed direction ignores, for example, the advances Women's College has made in women's cardiac research. We're in danger here of losing everything that we've established over the past 50 years. Will you commit --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Riverdale. Minister of Health, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: Nothing could be further from the truth. The government is ahead of any changes to Women's College Hospital, putting more money into women's health. There are many people today, including the deans of medicine, who have told me in the past, "The best thing you can do for women's health is to incorporate it as part of the day-to-day activities of all hospitals in the province." The people at Women's College know that because the research they do then goes out and is disseminated to all the hospitals in the province.

Ms Churley: You will never be forgotten if you --

The Speaker: Member for Riverdale, come to order.

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, I say the best thing that can be done for women's health, and the advice I get, is that it be the focus of every institution, every physician, and the focus of the entire health care system, not just one hospital located in downtown Toronto. I know the women of Ontario want the focus of health care in Ontario to be on women, on children, on those who have unique needs in our health care system.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There has been a fair amount of activity, one could say a virtual flurry of activity, around municipal restructuring in Ontario. In my own region, of course, there has also been a great deal of activity, so much so that members of the regional council had been lobbying members of this Legislature a fair amount for approval of some of the changes that they requested. The municipalities are anxious to avoid overlap and duplication in the services.

We passed Bill 135 last week in so far as the region of Waterloo is concerned, and I wonder if you could give us a little detail as to exactly what that bill is designed to cover.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to thank the members of the opposition for their support in making sure that bill went through.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Why don't you get rid of these rule changes then?

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

Mr Bradley: Don't even bother thanking the opposition. The thanks we got were dictatorial rule changes; that's the thanks we got for doing that last Wednesday.

Hon Mr Leach: Again I'll thank the members of the opposition, with the exception of the member for St Catharines, if that's what he wants.

I can tell you that on June 11 Bill 135 received second and third reading. I also want to thank the members from Kitchener-Waterloo for all the hard work they put in.

Bill 135 provides for the direct election of the regional chairman, and it also reduces the number of regional councillors from 26 to 22. It's a good example of how municipalities throughout the province are trying to streamline and get rid of waste and duplication.

Mr Wettlaufer: I wonder if you could give us some details about the restructuring plans that other municipalities are doing.

Hon Mr Leach: I would like to inform the House that when this party took office two years ago there were 815 municipalities in Ontario. By the end of 1997 we'll be down to about 650 municipalities, which is a good indication of how the municipalities in Ontario have recognized the need to amalgamate, to restructure, to get rid of waste and duplication and provide more efficient government to the people of Ontario.

There are a couple of examples I could use. In the county of Lambton, the village of Watford and the township of Warwick will amalgamate to form a new township, reducing the number of municipal politicians from 10 to five. That is happening right across the province, including in the area of Kingston and The Islands, where well-known, well-intentioned municipalities have made wise decisions to provide better government.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the acting Premier. On Friday he will know that the widely respected credit rating agency, Moody's, issued its annual report on the financial health of Ontario. The minister will know that under the previous Bob Rae government Moody's downgraded Ontario's credit rating three times. We now find that Moody's is giving Mike Harris exactly the same credit rating as they gave Bob Rae.

In the report, importantly, they are saying that, fully implemented, the tax initiative will cost the government $5 billion in forgone revenue.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Nepean and Durham Centre, come to order, please. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: The minister will know that Moody's said that, fully implemented, the initiative will cost the government $5 billion in forgone revenue. They go on to say, "The magnitude of the tax cut increases the risk. Cuts beyond what is currently contemplated will be needed to secure the government's medium-term balanced budget objective."

The question is this: Why is the government ignoring the very strong concern of Moody's about the future credit rating of the province as you proceed with the tax cut?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I think the member opposite is determined to find the black cloud. I don't have the exact

article before me with regard to the credit rating, but my recollection is it was a very favourable response by Moody's and Moody's indicated their extreme happiness with the situation of the province of Ontario.

I will tell you this: The Minister of Finance has been arranging borrowing for the province and the minister was rather amazed that he was able to borrow at 16 basis points over the federal borrowing rate. That's the lowest it has ever been in history. Even when Ontario had an AAA credit rating, the difference was at least 25 basis points. So the reality is that the financial community is saying that Ontario is doing a great job in terms of reducing the deficit and balancing the books.

Mr Phillips: The job of those organizations is to rate the credit. Forget all the rhetoric; the fact is that they have given Mike Harris exactly the same credit rating as they gave Bob Rae. I remember you and Mike Harris saying, "This credit rating is a disaster."

The public should know that we now have had the three major credit rating agencies look at the finances of the province and every single one has given exactly the same credit rating to Ontario as they gave to Bob Rae. Those are the hard facts for the province and the people of Ontario to appreciate: After two years of Mike Harris, exactly the same credit rating.

On Friday Moody's said, "Listen, we have some concerns that there are going to have to be dramatic additional cuts made in expenditures to meet the balanced budget program." My question is very simple: Are Moody's, Standard and Poor's and the Dominion Bond Rating Service wrong or is Mike Harris wrong?

Hon David Johnson: I'll tell you who I think is right out of this whole process: It's those who are creating jobs in Ontario. They are right. They know what's going on. They have confidence in this government. They have confidence in the province of Ontario: over the last three months, over 1,000 jobs a day.

I'll tell you who else is right: Those who loan money to Ontario are right in that they are giving the province the lowest interest rate in years, perhaps ever.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Okay, I understand. The excitement is palpable. New question.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. When the minister released the rewritten curriculum last week, dropping the requirement that by the end of grade 3 a student should be able to identify and describe stereotypes in media texts, he seemed to be contradicting a statement he made in this House in March when he said his ministry was planning to release a guidebook for principals and teachers on dealing with organized hate groups.

The guidebook had been sitting for months in the anti-discrimination and equal opportunity branch of his ministry. Instead of releasing the guidebook himself, the minister disbanded the anti-discrimination and equal opportunity branch of his ministry. It finally has been published by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in their most recent magazine edition of Education Forum.

Minister, do you honestly believe that we no longer require a branch of your ministry devoted to anti-discrimination and equal opportunity in Ontario schools? Doesn't our society benefit when students --

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

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I believe that branch of the ministry had completed the assignment it was given by the previous government and then maintained by this government, which was to work with the school boards as they developed anti-discrimination policies, policies to combat racism; those policies are now in place with every board across the province.

While we have disbanded the branch, no one in that branch lost their job. They are being put out in field services where they are closest to helping out people from the boards and teachers to make sure they combat these sorts of problems. I don't believe we'll ever be done combating discrimination, combatting racism. I believe it remains a priority for this government as it was for your government.

Mr Wildman: The minister says the work is never done, yet he says they completed their task. The minister has received a letter from the Canadian Italian Business and Professional Association asking him to ensure a continuing structured effort on fighting discrimination. Metro Toronto council has asked the minister to extend the contracts of the few remaining staff in the anti-discrimination and equal opportunity branch. These are people who are seconded from school boards until the end of this month.

Will you accept Metro Toronto's request and extend the terms of these secondments past the end of June until you have demonstrated that the work of the anti-discrimination and equal opportunity branch will continue in Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe it's because boards have taken this issue on, again with the help of the ministry, with the support of the previous government, with the support of this government, that we have provided them with the resources they need. I believe the member for Algoma would agree with me that these programs matter in the school, in the classroom. That's where these programs need to take root, that's where we're going to help the most people, that's particularly where we're going to help young people, that's where our concentration of efforts should be; not at 900 Bay but in the classroom, and that's where it will be.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Education, Mr Snobelen, on curriculum reform. Last Friday you announced a new, higher-standard curriculum for our grade 1 to grade 8 students. I agree we must put our students first.

Parents in my constituency of Durham East have asked for clearer standards, clearer expectations, regular testing and regular reporting for their children. Minister, now that you've released our curriculum on language and math, which is more readable and more understandable for all parents and teachers and students, how will the new curriculum fit with the other reforms the government has introduced?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to thank the member for the question. It's obviously something of great interest to many people across the province. I want to begin, though, by thanking my caucus committee colleagues who helped us put this curriculum in place, the external advisory bodies that helped us do this and the teachers who were consulted across the province who helped us get good curriculum for grades 1 to 8, we believe the best curriculum in Canada.

It does fit with the package of reforms, certainly the funding reforms to make sure our funds are directed to the classroom, that there are no second-class students in this province by virtue of funding. It fits certainly with the secondary school reform that we are now going through. We've consulted with over 20,000 people across the province, looking for a more relevant secondary school program.

It fits together because it's all driven by the same goal, and that goal is to have the highest student achievement in Canada with our students in Ontario. We believe they deserve no less and we'll be delivering on that goal and on that promise. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: I'm sure putting the student first is the objective of your ministry.

There have been some who have questioned that this curriculum is being introduced too quickly. Some teachers have complained that they will need more than just the summer to implement the new curriculum in time for September. Minister, are you concerned that we are late in introducing our new curriculum with higher standards?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can assure the honourable member that in fact we are not. We have had a look at how curriculum was introduced in other jurisdictions, both successfully and not so successfully, and I believe we have the right mix with this introduction. We are phasing in the introduction of changes to grades 1 to 8. We are beginning next fall, two and a half months from now, with the languages and the math curriculum; then we will begin to phase in the other parts of curriculum so the total package will take two years to put in place.

We are sending out that curriculum right now. As a matter of fact it's available on our Web site at the ministry. We're putting out 165,000 copies. We're holding symposiums during the summer months to help people make the transition. We are also having orientation sessions with the boards and other groups to make sure our system is ready for these better standards for our students. Once again, all of this is driven by something I think we have in common with teachers, and that is the goal of having the highest student achievement in Canada with our Ontario students.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EMPLOYEES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My question is to the Solicitor General. I want to again ask you about the circumstances of the employees of Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. Over a week ago I asked you to consider reinstating these employees. We're talking about a group of people who collectively have over 130 years of faithful service to this ministry. We are talking about a set of circumstances whereby they were asked to deal with a large group of young offenders who had just rioted at another institution, set it on fire and were sent to them in handcuffs and leg-irons, all of this in the middle of a strike.

They're now fired based on an investigation conducted by your ministry. These folks are facing dramatic hardship. Trying to keep their homes, their health and their families has become a difficult challenge as they wait for a legal process, with staggering bills, to prove their innocence now on two fronts, criminally and within the ministry.

Minister, what does it take to convince you that your ministry has left these people twisting in the wind? What can you do for them today?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I very much appreciate the concerns expressed by the member in representing his constituents. As he knows, there was an internal investigation that took some months and it was headed up by an inspector from the Ontario Provincial Police. The report was finalized a number of weeks ago and was reviewed by senior officials within the ministry of corrections, who determined following the review that disciplinary action was called for, and based on that did indeed take action which involved a number of dismissals of managers.

Those managers have the right to grieve to the Public Service Grievance Board with respect to the disciplinary action and I understand most, if not all of them are exercising that right.

Mr North: Minister, I'm calling on your sense of fairness with regard to your ministry's employees. I have in my hand documentation that will refute or call into question allegations of disregard for ministry policy and procedures by these employees, senior employees with 130 years of unblemished service to your ministry. I ask you today, will you read this information provided? Given the grave situation these employees are in, I ask you to commit this week to an independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding these employees and their dismissal, and that they be reinstated to suspension with pay until such time as this or some similar fair, agreed upon process is completed.

Hon Mr Runciman: The Public Service Grievance Board, as I understand it, has the right to call witnesses. The member mentioned a lengthy legal process. As I understand it, hearings are scheduled for mid-July to late July to deal with these issues. They have the right to call witnesses, to have counsel represent them with respect to their concerns, and the board itself has the power to reinstate or make modifications to any disciplinary action meted out by the ministry.

Under

section 22 of the Public Service Act, the authority to dismiss a civil servant lies within the mandate of the deputy minister or his or her designate, not the minister. I understand the member's frustrations with respect to having his concerns dealt with by the minister, but under the statutory authority, those powers lie with the deputy and his or her designate.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, over this last week, the untimely deaths of two children reminded us once again of the coroner's inquest into the death of Shanay Johnson. That inquest resulted in eight recommendations for action by your government, indeed mostly by your ministry. In the 38 days since this verdict was released, what recommendations have you acted on?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): We're working very closely with the Association of Children's Aid Societies to put in place not only those recommendations but other suggestions and recommendations that have come forward that will help us improve the children's aid, the child welfare system in Ontario.

Mrs Pupatello: In fact, almost every one of those 38 days we have been here in the House, and so far you have done nothing to ensure that deaths like Shanay Johnson's don't happen again. Months ago, the children's aid societies themselves handed you a list of amendments to the law that they need to help them do their job. You have now ensured that those amendments will not happen in this session, which means we can't even look forward to change and help to these agencies by the fall of this year.

So far, your actions in this area have been a complete disappointment to everyone who feels that children are a priority to this government. When are you planning to do something that makes a real difference to kids in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Contrary to the suggestion from the member opposite, we don't believe that rushing out and changing the legislation in a knee-jerk reaction is the way to solve a very fundamental and serious problem. If the member is suggesting that we should take recommendations that say we need to give children's aid societies more power and more authority to take children from families without consideration, without proper assessment, she should say that. I think the workers out there deserve more consideration from any government than to rush out and do something for the sake of generating a headline.

The budget was very clear. We have put forward additional resources that will help us implement recommendations at the Ministry of Community and Social Services. We're working with children's aid to come up with the best suggestions and alternatives.

WETLANDS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Your ministry is now considering a class A licence application under the Aggregate Resources Act from Seeley and Arnill Aggregates Inc. This particular company proposes a quarry development in Severn township. The local residents who opposed the project before the Ontario Municipal Board argued that before any decision is made, there should be a complete re-evaluation of the wetlands complex.

They are very concerned that there has not been an appropriate evaluation of the same and that two wetlands, a class 1 and a class 7, will be destroyed. Are you prepared to delay issuing of any licence to this company until a complete re-evaluation of the wetlands complex is done?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member of the third party for the question. I am well aware of the details around this issue. We are looking into it. As she knows, an elaborate process takes place any time an aggregate licence is requested; these processes take years. This one has gone through a number of years of study and went through to the OMB hearing, as you heard. We'll be looking into it. I am aware of the issue.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): It has come to my attention that a decision is going to be made any day. If you don't intervene directly now, it will be too late. I believe the residents of Severn township have brought forward a very good case. They don't want to have to go back to the OMB. The residents have already spent thousands of dollars in that process and they don't want to have to go through that again.

I'm sure you're well aware that it's not just the residents. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Sierra Club of Eastern Canada and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters have also made very strong submissions in opposition to this development.

I would ask you, Minister, to commit today to say that you will hold off on this project being given the go-ahead until you have re-evaluated which class it should be categorized in.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I mentioned to the other member from the third party, I am aware of the issue. I've been consulted on it. We have a process that I think most people in the province agree is fair. It gives both parties ample access to have input, and it's gone to the OMB. The reason why we have an OMB is to have an impartial arbitrator of these decisions. After that, what happens is they want to make sure that all the issues were considered.

I have received correspondence from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and people who are legitimately concerned about protecting wetlands and the values that wetlands contribute to the ecosystems in our province and we will be looking at that.

VULNERABLE ADULTS

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. When the government scrapped the old Advocacy Act, you promised to implement an approach which was community-based and reflective of the needs of the friends, family and volunteers who are already providing this type of support.

A component of your initiative for vulnerable adults was a telephone inquiry line and a comprehensive clearinghouse of information for those most in need. Can you share with this House how this portion of the initiative is coming along?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I thank the honourable member for Durham-York. Last year as a part of the initiative for vulnerable adults, this government announced its commitment to contract a community-based information service to vulnerable adults, including a province-wide telephone inquiry service and a comprehensive clearinghouse of information.

Last week with my honourable colleague the minister responsible for seniors, I was pleased to award a contract to a partnership of organizations led by ARCH, the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, with the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre at the University of Toronto and the Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. The ministry has signed a two-year contract with ARCH and its partners which we anticipate will be launched by the fall.

Mrs Munro: Minister, can you explain to this House how this approach to advocacy differs from the previous government's? And what has been the reaction to our initiative from those who need this service most?

Hon Ms Mushinski: On April 17, 1996, I launched our $3-million community-based initiative for vulnerable adults. Another component of that plan is the $2.25-million community connections program which supports the coordination of community-based activities. As most members are aware, this component of our plan is delivered by the Trillium Foundation. I might add that the IVA program is in response to what we heard from many stakeholders, including Mr Reville, who is the former chair of the Advocacy Commission, who agreed we could deliver this program at the community level for approximately $3 million.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. The unworkable nature of your new amalgamated school boards is becoming all too obvious. One of the concerns that has been expressed over and over again, most recently at the Ontario Public School Boards' Association meeting last Friday, was that there are a great many small communities, particularly in northern Ontario, that will end up with no trustee representation at all. You had assured communities that they would have those concerns addressed. You even announced something called a low-density factor, but the bottom line is that it doesn't work, it doesn't solve the problem.

If I take board number 2 as an example, because these new boards are nameless, they only go by numbers, which serves the central area of northern Ontario, there will be no trustee representation at all for Chapleau, Wawa, White River or Hornepayne. Is it acceptable to you that these communities will have no representation at all on school board number 2?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Fort William for asking the question today. Obviously, as we make changes in governance and we direct funds to the classroom away from the cost of bureaucracy and the number of people who work in the administration, there are going to be some difficulties in making that. We certainly agree with that. I would like to assure the member for Fort William that I have been talking with a number of people publicly about this change to see if we can do it in the best way possible to make sure communities are represented.

I've had some meetings with the member for Algoma recently about this very issue and we are looking at one of the alternatives, one of the options, that we can do to make sure those communities are represented properly. I'm sure the member for Fort William will remember that, since the time of the introduction of Bill 104, we have agreed to double the number of boards serving the northern communities on a recommendation from the Education Improvement Commission.

Again, we are now looking at how we can improve on that situation, and I assure the member opposite that we want to make sure these changes not only work for the benefit of the communities but work for the benefit of the students. We will do that.

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): "Speed, experience and team work save lives. Don't get burned by Bill 84.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to the professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I affix my signature to this wonderful petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by the United Steelworkers of America, the Canadian R/PIC Council, from their council meeting in Niagara Falls last month over the name of Reg Duguay, assistant to the director for District 6. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas Elizabeth Witmer returned Ontario's workplace to the Dark Ages by legalizing the use of scabs; and

"Whereas Bill 7 was designed, written and produced for the business community and implemented by their political bond servant Mike Harris with the full support of his totalitarian cabinet; and

"Whereas such government action is designed to break unions, return to picket-line violence in the quest for even more profit, motivated by the corporate gluttons such as S.A. Armstrong; and

"Whereas our Steelworker brothers and sisters at S.A. Armstrong were forced to take strike action while the company employed scabs in an attempt to undermine the collective bargaining process;

"Therefore,

be it resolved delegates demand the Harris government immediately amend the Labour Relations Act to provide again for anti-scab legislation."

I add my name to theirs.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have received over 1,000 signatures from communities like Nanticoke, Cheapside, Springvale and rural areas of my riding on a petition entitled, "Stand Up for Rural Health Care":

"Whereas there is urgent concern about the future of community hospitals located in Dunnville, Hagersville, Simcoe and Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas distance, weather and doctor shortages are serious barriers to people in rural areas accessing emergency services and health care; and

"Whereas local communities have worked for years to establish, maintain, improve and modernize hospital, physician and other health services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a rural health policy to deal with these problems and to protect the health care rights of rural communities; and that hospital boards, district health councils, the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the government of Ontario adhere to this rural policy."

I agree with this petition and therefore I affix my signature to it.

TFO

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition ici adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

«Attendu que TFO répond aux besoins d'Ontariens et d'Ontariennes de tout âge depuis plus de 25 ans offrant une programmation de qualité non commerciale qui continue de consacrer 70 % de son temps d'antenne à l'éducation et aux enfants ;

«Attendu que TFO est accessible à 97,4 % des Ontariens et Ontariennes et que pour certaines communautés qui n'ont pas la télévision par câble, il s'agit de la seule chaîne disponible, ce qui en fait un actif important de la province ;

«Attendu que TFO continue son travaille visant à générer plus de revenus ;

«Nous, soussignés, présentons la pétition suivante à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario pour que TFO continue d'être de propriété publique et que ce diffuseur à mission éducative reçoive un financement publique.»

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by and forwarded to me by members of the Toronto and Central Ontario building trades and the UFCW, Locals 175 and 663. The petition reads as follows:

"To save workers' compensation.

"To Premier Harris:

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system, including reducing benefits, excluding claims for back injuries, carpal tunnel, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress and most occupational disease, eliminating pension supplements, handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury, privatizing WCB to large insurance companies, eliminating worker representation, eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT, deducting Canada pension plan disability benefits and union pensions dollar for dollar from WCB benefits;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand compensation if we are injured, a safe workplace, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, that WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

l proudly add my name to theirs.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has directed the Ministry of Health to close the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital; and

"Whereas the closure of this health care facility seriously jeopardizes the continuity of care for the clients it serves; and

"Whereas this closure will have a devastating economic effect on the communities in Leeds and Grenville; and

"Whereas there has been absolutely no opportunity to allow public input from the various city and town councils, health care providers, district health councils, clients, their families and others who rely upon the services currently offered by the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital;

"Therefore we, the undersigned residents of Leeds and Grenville, urge the government of Ontario to treat us fairly by setting aside the recommendation of the Health Services Restructuring Commission with respect to the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital and the programs and services it provides, for a period of not less than six months, to allow full public input prior to any decisions or directions being issued with respect to the future of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, and further request that the Minister of Health direct the Health Services Restructuring Commission to take immediate steps to set up full public hearings in the city of Brockville."

I present that on behalf of the Honourable Bob Runciman. It's signed by more than 1,200 residents, and I affix my signature.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I am delighted that the member for Lanark-Renfrew is going to sign that petition and I only hope that when the time comes, he will vote for it. But, Mr Speaker, back to my petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Read your petition.

Mr Ruprecht: That's good news. Thank you very much.

The petition is a petition about the current child care crisis in Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Tory government has decided to replace our current child care system with one that lacks compassion and common sense and is fraught with many dangerous consequences; and

"Whereas the concept of affordable, accessible and quality child care is a basic, important and fundamental right for many members of our community who are either unemployed and enrolled in a training program, or are working single parents, or where both parents are working; and

"Whereas if our present provincial government is sincere in getting people back to work, they should recognize the value of the child care component of the jobs Ontario program and acknowledge the validity of the wage subsidy to the child care workers;

"Therefore we, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care workers of our Parkdale and High Park communities urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend their plans to implement cuts to our present child care program across our province and restore funding to their previous levels."

I am signing my signature to this document.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINICS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Whereas the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Inc (OHCOW) provide high-quality professional medical, hygiene and ergonomic services to employers, workers, joint health and safety committees and their communities; and

"Whereas the professional services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to organizations such as the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, increasing the demand for the services provided by OHCOW; and

"Whereas the professional and technical expertise and advice provided by OHCOW have made a significant contribution to improvements to workplace health and safety as well as the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call upon the government to maintain the funding of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers and oppose any attempt to alter the governance structure or erode the professional and technical services of OHCOW;

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that OHCOW be provided with the necessary funds to allow expansion into other Ontario communities in order to provide the professional and technical services needed to reduce occupational injuries, illnesses and deaths."

As I'm in agreement, I add my name to this.

GAMBLING

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas there is much well-documented evidence that the social and economic disadvantages of government-sanctioned gambling far outweigh any apparent benefits;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, declare our opposition to the expansion of casinos and the installation of electronic gambling devices. Therefore, we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to delay the implementation of Bill 75 and request that the province hold a binding referendum (in conjunction with the 1997 municipal elections) to determine the will of the people regarding the expansion of casinos and the installation of electronic gambling devices in Ontario."

This petition is signed by two members.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): As you know, the campaign to save TVO is going extraordinarily well, with letters and petitions coming in from all across the province, and I have some more to read today.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality non-commercial television that continues to focus 70% of its programming on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVO is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVO continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

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

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed and forwarded to me by members of OPSEU and the CAW.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario" -- unlike the measly six days we're getting for the WCB.

I add my name to theirs.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have probably one of the most important petitions this House has seen over the last two years right here and I will read it into the record. It states:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris Reform government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris Reform government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris Reform government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs on all sides will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris Reform government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of all elected members of the Legislative Assembly who" after all "are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office," with unelected people, "in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon these proposed draconian rule changes and retain rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I'm very pleased to add my signature to this as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I warn you, Mr Speaker, this is long; there are about 44 pages here, although the typing is somewhat large.

I move that the standing orders be amended as follows:

That standing order 1(

b) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

b) The purpose of these standing orders is to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the democratic rights of members,

"(

i) to submit motions, resolutions and bills for the consideration of the assembly and its committees, and to have them determined by democratic vote;

"(ii) to debate, speak to, and vote on motions, resolutions and bills;

"(iii) to hold the government accountable for its policies; and

"(iv) collectively, to decide matters submitted to the assembly or a committee.

"(

c) In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, and in making the ruling the Speaker or Chair shall base the decision on the democratic rights of members referred to in clause (b). In doing so the Speaker shall have regard to any applicable usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition.

"(

d) The standing orders shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner that permits a member to obtain a procedural or tactical advantage by contravening a standing order."

That standing order 6(

b) be deleted.

That standing order 9(

c) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

c) The House may meet between the hours of 6:30 pm and 9:30 pm on the passage of a government motion for that purpose. Such a motion may apply to one day or to more than one day. The question on such a motion shall be put forthwith and without amendment or debate. Despite standing order 2, such an evening meeting period is a new sessional day. It shall be limited to the consideration of government orders or private members' public business or both, according to the terms of the motion. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bell shall be limited to 15 minutes.

At 9:30 of such an evening meeting period, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

"(c.1) Where a motion under clause (

c) provides that all or part of an evening meeting period shall be devoted to the consideration of private members' public business, the motion shall indicate the business to be considered, the time or times reserved for such business, and any special procedure to be followed. Such motion may provide that all or part of standing order 96 applies with necessary modifications to the debate on private members' public business.

"(c.2) The House may sit beyond the hours provided in clauses (

a) and (

c) on the passage of a government motion for that purpose. Such a motion requires notice, and must appear on the Orders and Notices paper by the first sessional day of the first week to which the motion applies. The question on such a motion shall be put forthwith and without amendment or debate. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bells shall be limited to 15 minutes."

That standing order 10(

a) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

a) Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the government advises the Speaker that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time, the Speaker shall give notice that the House shall meet at such time, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and the period referred to in subclauses 6(a)(

i) or (ii) had been extended accordingly."

That standing order 11 be amended by adding the following clause:

"(

e) If on Thursday morning the House is adjourned for lack of a quorum during the consideration of private members' public business, it shall stand adjourned until 1:30 pm of the same day."

That standing order 13 be amended by adding the following clauses after clause (b):

"(b.1) The Speaker may rule on a point of privilege or point of order when it is raised without allowing any discussion apart from the member raising the point.

"(b.2) A member raising a point of order or point of privilege, and any member permitted by the Speaker to speak to it, must put the point tersely and speak only to the point raised. A point of order or privilege is heard in silence by the House."

That standing orders 15 and 16 be deleted and the following substituted:

"15(

a) If a member on being called to order for an offence against any standing order persists in the offence, the Speaker may direct the member to discontinue, and if such member refuses to comply, the Speaker shall name the member to the House.

"(

b) When a member is named by the Speaker, if the offence is a minor one, the Speaker may order the member to withdraw for the balance of the sessional day; but if the matter appears to the Speaker to be of a more serious nature, the Speaker shall put the question on the motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, `that such member be suspended from the service of the House,' such suspension being for any time stated in the motion not exceeding eight sessional days.

"(

c) If any member on being named and directed to withdraw from the House refuses to obey the direction of the Speaker when summoned under the Speaker's order by the Sergeant at Arms, the Speaker shall call to the attention of the House that force is necessary in order to compel obedience and such member shall thereupon, without motion, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the session.

"(

d) If a member suspended under clause (

c) does not leave the House, the member's presence in the House shall not be recognised and the business of the House shall proceed as if the member had left.

"16(

a) In the case of grave disorder in the House, the Speaker or the Chair may, if he or she thinks it necessary to do so and unless it would disadvantage a member who is not responsible for the disorder, adjourn the House or a committee without motion, or suspend any meeting for a time to be named by him or her.

"(

b) In order to prevent disadvantage to a member who is not responsible for such grave disorder, the Speaker or Chair may, despite any standing order, adjust any adjournment time, commencement time, voting time or voting schedule, time limit, time requirement or deadline in order to compensate for the time lost by the grave disorder or by the adjournment or suspension referred to in clause (a)."

That standing order 20(

a) be deleted and the following substituted:

"20(

a) Members shall remain in their places and refrain from interrupting the Speaker when he or she has risen to speak, make a ruling, or put a question to the House."

That standing order 21 be deleted and the following substituted:

"21(

a) Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom.

"(

b) Once the Speaker finds that a prima facie case of privilege exists it shall be taken into consideration immediately.

"(

c) Any member proposing to raise a point of privilege, other than one arising out of proceedings in the chamber during the course of a sessional day, shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the point at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.

"(

d) The Speaker may rule that a prima facie case of privilege does not exist on the basis of the written statement referred to in clause (

c) and, despite clause 13(b.1), may do so without allowing discussion from any member."

That standing order 22(

b) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

b) When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in the Speaker's opinion, rose first in his or her place."

That standing order 22 be further amended by adding the following clause:

"(

d) Subject to the standing orders and any other order of the House, nothing prevents the Speaker or Chair of the committee of the whole House from recognizing an independent member to speak."

That standing orders 24 and 25 be deleted and the following substituted:

"24(

a) Except where otherwise expressly provided by the standing orders or by unanimous consent of a committee, no member shall speak in the House or committee for more than 20 minutes.

"(

b) Notwithstanding clause (a), the first speaker for any recognized party in the House may speak for not more than 40 minutes in the following circumstances:

"(

i) debate on second reading of a government bill.

"(ii) debate on third reading of a government bill.

"(iii) debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

"(iv) debate on the budget motion.

"(

v) debate on the interim supply motion.

"(vi) debate on any other substantive government motion.

"(

c) Notwithstanding clause (a), no member shall speak for more than 10 minutes after five hours of debate on second or third reading of a government bill.

"25(

a) Following the speech of each member, but only during the first five hours of debate, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the matters before the House and to allow responses thereto, in the following circumstances:

"(

i) debate on second reading of a government bill, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the reply allowed to the minister or parliamentary assistant who has moved second reading of the bill;

"(ii) debate on third reading of a government bill, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the reply allowed to the minister or parliamentary assistant who has moved third reading of the bill;

"(iii) debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the motion for the address; the speeches of the members speaking first on behalf of the official opposition and the other recognized opposition parties, and the speeches of the members winding up the throne debate for each recognized party;

"(iv) debate on the budget motion, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance, the speeches of the members speaking first on behalf of the official opposition and the other recognized opposition parties, and the speeches of the members winding up the budget debate for each recognized party; and

"(

v) debate on a motion for interim supply.

"(

b) In asking a question or making a comment with respect to the matters set out in clause (a), no member shall speak for more than two minutes. Two minutes shall be reserved for the reply of the member originally speaking."

That standing order 28 be deleted and the following substituted:

"28(

a) When a voice vote has been taken on any question, a division may be required by five members standing in their places.

"(

b) When members have been called in for a division, there shall be no further debate.

"(

c) When the members have been called in, the Speaker shall again put the question and, subject to standing order 12, every member present at that time who wishes to vote shall rise and record his or her vote.

"(

d) Members are not compelled to vote and those who wish to abstain should remain in their seats when asked to rise and record their vote. An abstention shall not be entered in the Votes and Proceedings or Journals.

"(

e) The names of the members voting on each side of the question shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journals, except on dilatory motions when the numbers only shall be entered.

"(

f) Immediately after the vote, the pairs, if any, shall be declared and shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journals.

"(

g) Except as otherwise provided in the standing orders, the division bells shall be limited to 30 minutes.

"(

h) During the ringing of division bells as provided in clause (g), the vote may be deferred at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House. The Speaker shall then defer the taking of the vote to the next sessional day during deferred votes, at which time the bells shall be rung for not more than five minutes.

"(

i) Divisions requested on motions to adjourn the House or the debate, that the Chair of a committee of the whole House report progress and ask for leave to meet again or leave the chair, and for closure shall not be deferred.

"(

j) Notwithstanding standing order 30(b), the Speaker shall put every question on the deferred votes."

That standing order 30 be deleted and the following substituted:

"30(

a) The routine proceedings before the orders of the day are as follows:

"Members' Statements

"Reports by Committees

"Introduction of Bills

"Motions

"Statements by the Ministry and Responses

"Deferred Votes

"Oral Questions

"Petitions

"(

b) At 4 pm on any day on which the House has not commenced orders of the day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the routine proceeding currently occupying the House and immediately call orders of the day."

That standing order 31 be amended by adding the following clause:

"(

d) The Speaker has the discretion to permit an independent member to make a statement for no longer than one and one-half minutes. In exercising his or her discretion, the Speaker shall have regard to the opportunities that members of recognized parties have to make such statements. An independent member shall notify the Speaker of his or her intention to make a statement."

That standing order 33 be amended by adding the following clause:

"(

j) The Speaker has the discretion to permit an independent member to place an oral question and one supplementary question during oral question period. In exercising his or her discretion, the Speaker shall have regard to the opportunities that members of recognized parties -- other than the leaders of opposition parties or members who place questions instead of the leaders -- have to place such questions. An independent member shall notify the Speaker of his or her intention to place a question."

That standing order 34(

f) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

f) When the House continues to meet past 6 pm on a government motion as provided in standing order 9, except a motion under clause 9(c), the adjournment proceeding under this standing order shall not apply.

"(f.1) If the House is scheduled to meet again at 6:30 pm of the same calendar day and the debate under this standing order has not been completed by 6:25 pm, the Speaker shall immediately interrupt the adjournment proceeding, deem the motion to adjourn to be carried, and adjourn the House to the next sessional day."

That standing order 35 be deleted and the following substituted:

"35. Under the proceeding `Motions' the government House leader may move routine motions that are part of the technical procedure of the House, including motions under standing order 9 and other motions for times of meeting and adjournment of the House, and motions for changes in membership of committees and similar non-substantive matters. Except as provided by clause 9(c.2), these routine motions do not require notice."

That standing order 36(

h) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

h) Within 45 sessional days of its presentation, excluding sessional days pursuant to clause 9(c), the government shall file a response to a petition with the Clerk of the House and shall provide a copy of the response to the member who presented the petition."

That standing order 37(

a) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

a) The report of a standing or select committee on any bill shall be taken into consideration immediately and the Speaker shall put the question on the motion for the adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without amendment or debate. If a recorded vote is requested, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes."

That standing order 38 be deleted and the following substituted:

"38(

a) In recognition of the right of every member to introduce a bill and have it printed for distribution to and consideration by other members, the process for introduction of bills shall be as follows:

"(

b) A bill shall be introduced upon a motion for leave for introduction and first reading, specifying the title of the bill. No notice is required.

"(

c) Upon being moved, the motion for introduction and first reading shall be deemed to have been carried and the Speaker shall announce the result. In the case of a public bill, the mover may then make a brief explanation of its purposes."

"(

d) On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics. If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics unless the bill amends

an act amended previously in the session.

"(

e) No bill may be introduced in blank or imperfect form.

"(

f) No introduction of a single bill shall last for more than five minutes.

"(

g) The period for `Introduction of Bills' shall be limited to 30 minutes."

That standing order 39(

a) and (

b) be deleted.

That standing order 42(

g) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

g) Debate on a motion shall be limited to one sessional day. At 5:45 pm on that day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put the question without debate. If a recorded vote is requested, the division bells shall be limited to 15 minutes."

That standing order 43(

b) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

b) Debate on a motion under clause (

a) shall be at a time allotted by agreement of the House leaders and restricted to one sessional day. At 5:45 pm on that day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put the question without further debate."

That standing order 45 be amended by adding following clause:

"(

d) The Speaker or Chair shall rule out of order any motion or amendment that he or she considers to be frivolous, vexatious, for purposes of delay or contrary to the standing orders or precedents."

That standing order 46(

b) and (

c) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

b) At 5:45 pm or at 9:15 pm, as the case may be, after the time allocation motion has been called as the first government order of the sessional day the Speaker shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, division bells shall be limited to 15 minutes.

"(

c) A time allocation motion may not be moved until second reading debate has been completed or three sessional days of debate have taken place on second reading consideration of any government bill or on a substantive government motion when that government bill or substantive motion has been called as the first government order of the day on each of the sessional days."

That standing order 54 be amended by deleting the words "or a minister acting in his or her place."

That standing order 55 be deleted and the following substituted:

"55. Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader may announce the business for the following week."

That standing order 57 be amended by adding the following clause:

"(

b) There shall be three sessional days allotted to the debate on the budget motion and any amendments thereto. At 5:45 pm or at 9:15 pm, as the case may be, on the third sessional day of debate, the Speaker shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of the budget motion. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, division bells shall be limited to 15 minutes."

That standing order 58 be deleted and the following substituted:

"58. All main estimates shall be presented to the House after completion of the budget debate but not later than 12 sessional days following the presentation of the budget and shall be deemed to be referred to the standing committee on estimates."

That standing order 62(

c) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

c) There shall be an order for concurrence placed on the Orders and Notices paper for each of the estimates reported from the committee.

At 5:45 pm or 9:15 pm, as the case may be, on the sessional day during which debate on the orders for concurrence commences as the first government order of the day, or after three hours of debate on the orders for concurrence if the debate did not commence as the first government order of the day, the Speaker shall without further debate put every question necessary to dispose of the order for concurrence in supply for each of the ministries and offices named in the committee's report. No amendment to any question may be moved.

If a recorded vote is requested by five members, all divisions shall be stacked, and there shall be a single 15-minute division bell. Debate shall be in the House with the Speaker in the chair and subject to the usual standing orders."

That standing order 65 be amended by adding the following clause:

"(

b) When the debate on the interim supply motion is complete, or at 5:45 pm or 9:15 pm, as the case may be, on the sessional day during which debate on the interim supply motion commences as the first government order of the day, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bells shall be limited to 15 minutes."

That standing order 68 be deleted.

That standing order 69(

d) be deleted.

That standing order 75 be amended by adding the following clauses:

"(

b) The Chair of a committee, including the Chair of committee of the whole, shall rule out of order any amendment that he or she considers to be frivolous, vexatious, for purposes of delay or contrary to the standing orders or precedents.

"(

c) The Chair of a committee, including the Chair of committee of the whole, may group the votes on amendments appropriately grouped together, select the order in which amendments are to be voted, dispense with the reading of an amendment provided that the text of the amendment is available to members and members are informed of what amendment is before them, select from among duplicative amendments those which shall be voted and those which shall not, or take such other steps as he or she considers necessary to facilitate the committee's consideration and disposition of multiple amendments.

"(

d) The Chair of a committee, including the Chair of committee of the whole may establish deadlines for tabling amendments or for filing them with the committee clerk."

That standing order 77(

a) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

a) Bills reported from committee of the whole House shall stand ordered for third reading. Bills reported from standing or select committees shall be ordered for third reading unless the minister or parliamentary assistant directs that it be referred to committee of the whole House."

That standing order 96(

b) be amended by adding the following subclause:

"(iv) The Speaker has the discretion to permit an independent member to speak for up to five minutes on the motion of another private member. In exercising his or her discretion, the Speaker shall have regard to the opportunities that members of recognized parties have to participate in debate on other members' motions. An independent member shall give the Speaker notice of his or her intention to participate in the debate."

That standing order 96 be further amended by deleting clause (

d) and substituting the following:

"(

d) The order for consideration of the items of business shall be determined by a ballot conducted by the Clerk prior to or at the commencement of each session. All private members, including independent members, may enter their names for the draw, and names shall be drawn from a single box."

That standing order 96(

e) be deleted.

That standing order 97(

d) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

d) The minister shall answer such written questions within 45 sessional days, excluding sessional days pursuant to clause 9(c), unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

That standing order 97 be further amended by adding the following clause:

"(

g) No member shall have more than four questions on the order paper at any one time."

That standing order 106(

g) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

g) Standing committee on government agencies which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and commissions to which the Lieutenant Government in Council makes some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, such reviews to be made with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies, and to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions and of directors to corporations in which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder (excluding reappointments, appointments for a term of one year or less, and appointments of persons who are public servants under the Public Service Act who remain public servants after their appointments) according to the following procedures:

"1. A minister of the crown shall lay on the table a certificate stating that the Lieutenant Governor in Council intends to appoint a person to an agency, board or commission or to the board of directors of a corporation, together with a copy of the position description and a

summary of the person's qualifications, which documents shall be deemed to be referred to the committee.

"2. Upon receipt of a certificate as referred to in paragraph 1, the clerk of the committee shall distribute to each member of the subcommittee on committee business a list of intended appointees in respect of whom a certificate has been received.

"3. The subcommittee shall meet at its own initiative, at the request of the committee, or at the request of any member of the subcommittee, to select from among the intended appointees referred to in paragraph 1, those intended appointees the committee will review. Each member of the subcommittee, other than the Chair, may choose one or more of the intended appointees for review from the certificates provided by the clerk of the committee.

"4. The subcommittee shall report to the committee on the intended appointees for review. Upon receiving the report, the committee shall determine a date for the review of the intended appointees as selected by the members of the subcommittee. The report shall specify the amount of time allocated for the consideration of each intended appointee and the date on which each will be reviewed. An equal amount of time shall be allocated for review of each member's selections, and where a member of the subcommittee has selected more than one intended appointee the time available to review that member's selections shall be allocated among his or her selections.

"5. Upon notice from the clerk of the committee that an intended appointee has been selected for review, the minister shall ensure that the committee receives a copy of the intended appointee's résumé or biographical information and a description of the responsibilities of the position.

"6. A subcommittee member may choose to defer the consideration of one or more of the intended appointees that the member has chosen until a future meeting of the committee at which intended appointees are to be reviewed so long as the consideration of the intended appointee has not previously been deferred.

"7. In reviewing an intended appointee, the committee shall not call as a witness any person other than the intended appointee.

"8. At the conclusion of the meeting held to review an intended appointment, the committee shall determine whether or not it concurs in the intended appointment. Any member may request that the committee defer its determination to the next meeting of the committee, but in any event no later than seven calendar days. In its report, the committee shall state whether or not it concurs in the intended appointments and may state its reasons.

"9. Whether or not the House stands adjourned, the committee shall release its report by depositing it the same day with the Clerk of the assembly and upon receipt of the report by the Clerk the report shall be deemed to be adopted by the House.

"10. A report that the committee will not review an intended appointee shall be deemed to have been made by the committee and adopted by the House in any of the following cases:

"(

a) a report respecting the intended appointee has not been made by the committee within 30 calendar days following the day on which the minister tables the certificate referred to in paragraph 1,

"(

b) the subcommittee does not at its first meeting following the day on which the minister tables the certificate select the intended appointee for review, or

"(

c) the intended appointee has not been selected for review by the subcommittee within 14 days following the day on which the minister tabled the certificate.

"11. The committee by unanimous agreement may