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

March 21, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L045 - Thu 21 Mar 1996 / Jeu 21 Mar 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 69

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

CHARLES SAURIOL

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

BRIAN GARNER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AMAPCEO AGREEMENT

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMAPCEO AGREEMENT

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMAPCEO AGREEMENT

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

WORKFARE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

SEWAGE AND STORMWATER TUNNEL

WATER QUALITY

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

ROAD SAFETY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise today to remind a few of my colleagues across the way of a very important commitment that is not being kept by the government. On January 22, I received notification that the ongoing planning stage of the four-laning of Highway 69 into Sudbury was to be cancelled. This vital link is fundamental to the economic wellbeing of Sudbury and the north. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the Minister of Transportation of a few previous statements made by our Premier regarding the expansion of highways to the north. I quote:

"I think it's crucial that four-laning proceed. I have said on many occasions that the four-laning project ought not to be considered only on the amount of vehicles, but that it should be looked at by the provincial government as an economic tool for the promotion of economic development, tourism and the way of life in northern Ontario."

Let me give you another quote from Mr Harris while on the campaign trail, regarding the four-laning of Highway 11, which goes into North Bay from Toronto: "My party has made a commitment that it should proceed as soon as possible and that work continue until that project can be completed."

What about Highway 69, Mr Premier? Lives continue to be lost at an alarming rate on this highway. To kill the inexpensive planning stage would be to put off construction for several years and to continue the carnage we see all too frequently on Highway 69.

The people of Sudbury have spoken loudly and clearly through a resolution of Sudbury regional council demanding a safe and viable link to the north that will ensure a vibrant economy.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The members of OPSEU Local 639 are holding a solidarity march on Saturday, March 23, at 2 pm in Kapuskasing, in the riding of Cochrane North. OPSEU 639 has asked that I extend an invitation to all interested members of the Legislature to march with them through the streets of Kapuskasing to protest the direct attack by the Harris government on their union and all unions and unionized workers, and the Tory government's agenda of cutting health care, social and education services as well as trying to dismantle all the unions in this province.

The march will start and end at the rear parking lot of the Model City Mall in Kapuskasing. Come out and join me and the unionized citizens of Kapuskasing in a solidarity march. Everyone is welcome. I might point out, Mr Harris, please leave your Tory OPP goons at home. We don't need them up in Cochrane North.

Local 639 is pleased that we've had solidarity marches in Hearst, Cochrane, Timmins and all throughout the ridings of Cochrane North and Cochrane South. They're fed up with the Tory agenda of attacking people steadily, steadily, steadily. We want an end to it. They've given over 500 pink slips from Cochrane North that they think Mike Harris should be replaced, he should be fired, as he's doing with a lot of other workers in this province.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): In these days of funding cutbacks and looking for innovative ways of delivering services, I'd like to share with you some exciting projects. The faculty of applied science and engineering at the University of Toronto, in my riding of St Andrew-St Patrick, has teamed up with the engineering departments of McMaster University and the University of Waterloo to develop a new electronic classroom networking system which allows teaching resources to be shared among the three faculties. Electronic links have also been made with other Canadian universities.

In fact, just last week a PhD oral examination was conducted over the network between a student in Ottawa and a judge in Toronto.

The faculty of applied science and engineering has also introduced a new program called the professional experience year which allows undergraduate students at the University of Toronto to take a year's leave from their engineering studies to get some work and valued experience in industry. This program helps give students the practical work they need and makes them more competitive in a tight job market once they graduate. There are 170 students registered in this program already.

This is an excellent demonstration of how at least one university is becoming more innovative and entrepreneurial and how universities can work together to achieve greater results. Partnership and innovation are the cornerstones of our future.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Recently the health care task force in Hamilton announced its recommendation to close St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton. St Joseph's Hospital is a vital component of the Hamilton health care system that services thousands of sick and frail every day. Unfortunately, in 1996 the sick and the frail are perfect targets for Mike Harris and the Tories.

St Joseph's has been operated since 1890 by the Sisters of St Joseph. It is one of the top health care facilities in the region. Last year alone, it served 350,000 people. Sixty per cent of the St Joseph's Hospital site is less than six years old, with over $100 million in redevelopment in the building itself.

However, Hamilton is fighting back. Hamilton's not going to roll over and allow this government or the district health council to recommend a closure of St Joseph's. Our MPPs' offices are receiving hundreds of phone calls and letters every day. A town hall meeting organized by Hamilton Centre MPP David Christopherson attracted over 600 people, with a few days' notice, all expressing opposition to the cuts.

We urge the minister to join with the hundreds of thousands of Hamilton-Wentworth residents who are going to express and continue to express disgust at this recommendation. We urge the minister to commit to the House that he will recommend that any moves whatsoever by the district health council to close St Joseph's be denied and that he assure the people of Hamilton today that he will not accept those recommendations.

We'll keep fighting and we'll keep ensuring that St Joseph's remains open.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The Sudbury Star newspaper recently commissioned a public opinion survey in our community regarding the OPSEU strike. The question asked of respondents was, "Do you support the Ontario government or its striking public service employees in the current labour dispute?" The survey results showed 43% of those questioned support the workers, those delivering important public services in our community. Only 29% of those asked were prepared to back the Conservative government on this issue.

That strong support for OPSEU was also clearly demonstrated last Friday during a march and rally held in downtown Sudbury. Over 1,500 people came out to protest the Conservative government and to demand a just and fair settlement for Ontario public sector workers.

In our community, workers in the public and private sector understand the importance of key workplace issues like seniority, pensions and successor rights. Working men and working women in my community have fought long and hard to realize those gains. They know full well that once OPSEU workers are stripped of these fundamental rights, the Conservatives will move on to the next group of workers: health care workers next week, steelworkers the week after, teachers after that, and on and on.

The Mike Harris government doesn't care that it's discriminating against its own workers. It doesn't care that it's stripping away protections that other Tory governments have put in place. It doesn't care that once you lay off thousands and thousands of workers, you destroy important public services. The only thing Mike Harris cares about is to drag labour legislation and worker protection down --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

CHARLES SAURIOL

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Last December, the borough of East York lost one of its leading citizens, and conservationists across Ontario lost one of their best friends when Charles Sauriol died at the age of 91.

Charles Sauriol dedicated the second half of his remarkable life to the cause of conservation. He was central to efforts which raised more than $20 million in support of this important cause. He spearheaded the protection of thousands of acres of heritage lands across Canada, including over 500 natural areas within this province.

He was also the author of several books on the subject of conservation and was at work on another one literally at the moment of his death.

His work earned him many awards, including the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario Conservation Award and the Order of Canada.

Charles Sauriol devoted unparalleled energy to his passion for restoration and conservation of the natural environment. He focused particular efforts towards conservation in the Don River watershed, which includes much of Metropolitan Toronto and all of East York and which has been part of my life since my earliest days growing up in this community. To Charles, the Don River Valley was one of nature's corridors, deserving of respect and protection, the importance of which only increased as the concrete and asphalt of urban development grew around it.

I met Charles Sauriol at Todmorden Mills in East York when we both participated in marking the establishment of a man-made natural pond site in an area where runoff waters feed into the lower Don. Later this spring, I will be joining many others who will paddle the lower Don past this site into Lake Ontario. I will be thinking of Charles Sauriol with each paddle stroke. As I look at the valley about me, I know I will be witnessing both a monument to the life's work of Charles Sauriol and the challenge of the unfinished work that he left behind for the rest of us to continue.

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In the absence of a minister's statement and with a simple press release only, I'd like to talk about the new Health Services Restructuring Commission which was created under the government's now infamous Bill 26, the omnibus bill.

In the absence of a ministerial statement on the appointment of the CEO, Mr Mark Rochon, I would like to say to the minister that his approach is unacceptable. He says, "The mandate of the restructuring commission is to make decisions on implementation of hospital restructuring and consider more generally restructuring of the health care system."

The commission will have the power to close or amalgamate hospitals. There's no requirement for consultation or participation of the district health councils or in fact with the communities they represent. Any individual member of this commission could have the power to go into any community and impose solutions.

The minister says in his press release that the commission "will function at arm's length from the government and will keep the minister...informed." Yet Mark Rochon, who is the CEO, was a former assistant deputy minister at the Ministry of Health and the press release also says, "...the Ministry of Health with which the commission will be working closely in the discharge of its mandate." I say to the minister, you can't have it both ways. You must take responsibility --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): With the OPSEU strike nearing the end of its fourth week and with the events of Monday still fresh in our minds, I think it's important for us to reflect back on some of the events leading into and during the strike.

We saw back this fall the actions of this government through Bill 26 to take away pension rights of public servants in this province. We saw them, secondly, crank up threats of layoffs from the 13,000 that they promised during the election to up to 27,000 that was leaked out several weeks ago. We saw them next put out an offer just before the strike vote, trying to simply buy off those employees who would survive those layoffs, and we saw that that strategy didn't work and that the union indeed got a strong level of support for the strike vote they took.

During the strike the government's intimidation tactics continued. They tried to undermine the union by attempting to broaden the use of essential services workers. Again, this tactic and others they used didn't work. This Monday we saw the ultimate in intimidation, in a very sad day, not just in the strike but in the governance of this province.

I say to this government, if they are serious about arriving at any sense of peace in this province, to get to the bargaining table and to resolve the outstanding issues at the bargaining table where they should be.

BRIAN GARNER

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I rise today in the House to show appreciation for one of my constituents, Brian Garner, a resident of Pontypool. In a courageous act of heroism, Brian took control of a potentially dangerous situation involving others' lives.

Brian, a grade 12 student at I.E. Weldon Secondary School, was a passenger on a school bus when the driver was suddenly struck in the face with flying glass from a shattered windshield while driving on Highway 35. The driver was temporarily blinded from debris in her eye. Brian took charge of the incident by steering the school bus safely off the highway and then administering first aid to the injured driver's eye.

I would like to thank Brian Garner for his quick action in saving the lives of not only the driver but the many students riding on the school bus. It's a pleasure today to recognize Brian Garner.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AMAPCEO AGREEMENT

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I am pleased to inform the members of the House that an agreement has been ratified between the government and the second-largest bargaining unit in the Ontario public service on the issue of job security. The agreement is with AMAPCEO, which is the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario. The association represents about 5,000 public servants, including policy, financial and systems professionals.

Yesterday, the membership of AMAPCEO voted overwhelmingly in favour of the agreement with the government. AMAPCEO has indicated that the unofficial results are that more than 85% voted to ratify the agreement. The government also ratified the agreement yesterday.

The agreement includes an innovative job matching and job registry system to allow employees who wish to leave the public service to trade their job to an employee who is scheduled to be laid off. The agreement also provides for a variety of job security measures, including six months' notice or six months' pay in lieu of notice, an enhanced severance of two weeks' pay for each year of service, the right to bump a less senior employee and the right to pension bridging if eligible.

I am delighted that we have been able to reach an agreement with AMAPCEO on these important job security issues. I also want to congratulate the leadership of AMAPCEO for their hard work and their creativity in negotiating innovative solutions to the challenges facing the government and its workforce.

Finally, I hope that this agreement will help to pave the way to an agreement with OPSEU and to end the strike.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Today I would like to introduce significant reforms to the occupational health and safety system, with the goal of preventing workplace injuries and illness and embarking on a more cost-effective course to make workplaces in this province among the safest in the world.

As Minister of Labour, I am deeply committed to workplace health and safety and I am determined to eliminate the duplication, inefficiency and lack of measurable and positive results by developing an overall vision with strategic directions and performance objectives which will allow all workplace parties to understand their roles and work together to ensure that common goals are met.

The reforms today include immediate action on the recommendations of the review panel on workplace health and safety, which presented its report to me on December 20, 1995. As recommended, I am reaffirming that the internal responsibility system which was introduced in 1979 remain as the foundation of Ontario's approach to workplace health and safety. It is built on the self-reliance of the workplace parties and means that employers and employees must be responsible for eliminating hazards within their workplaces and for achieving optimum health and safety performance.

The ministry's role will be to set, communicate and enforce standards in health and safety while ensuring that the workplace parties become more self-reliant in the day-to-day achievement and maintenance of those standards. The ministry remains firmly committed to its enforcement role, and where there are violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we will take action. Consistent with this, as I have previously announced, the current number of health and safety inspectors will be maintained.

We are implementing action in five areas. First, the functions of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency will be integrated into the Workers' Compensation Board. This is consistent with Bill 15, passed in December 1995, which changed the purpose clause of the WCB to include the prevention of injury and illness and the promotion of health and safety. A senior executive at the WCB will be given responsibility for health and safety.

Second, I have asked the Deputy Minister of Labour and the president of the Workers' Compensation Board to work with stakeholders to identify priorities for health and safety and to develop a performance measurement and monitoring system that will tell us whether we are achieving our goal of preventing injuries and illness.

Third, a task force will review the health and safety delivery organizations to determine their role, future and funding and make them more sector-specific. The task force will report by July 1, 1996. At the same time, an independent value-for-money audit of these organizations will be conducted, with an emphasis on their expenditure management and program evaluation practices.

Fourth, certification training will remain as an integral component of Ontario's health and safety system, as will the joint workplace health and safety committees. However, as part of its new mandate, the Workers' Compensation Board will set province-wide training standards and approve training programs and providers that meet these standards. This will allow for flexibility in achieving certification outcomes by making a variety of programs and delivery methods available to meet the needs of different workplaces.

Finally, in order to ensure progress in injury and illness prevention and reduce compensation costs, I am pleased to announce that we will be increasing our commitment to research in health and safety. We need our own research to focus practical, preventive efforts properly by understanding injury mechanisms correctly and to develop effective programs and strategies to gain a competitive advantage. Savings achieved through administrative streamlining will be reinvested in research. This initiative will involve new partnerships with the private sector, universities and research organizations.

These reforms support our objective of creating a coordinated strategy aimed at achieving progressive reductions in injury and illness occurrence and related costs and demonstrate our government's deep commitment to health and safety and our desire to make Ontario's workplaces among the safest in the world.

AMAPCEO AGREEMENT

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Now that the minister has reached agreement with AMAPCEO, I think a question that should be put to the minister is, when will he reach agreement with OPSEU and treat OPSEU workers with the same kind of respect and the same kind of fairness? I would ask the minister if he would stop being a revolutionary zealot for just a moment and begin to reach agreement with OPSEU, which would bring us an agreement that would have fairness as the watchword and certainly would deal with the front-line workers.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Dave Johnson a revolutionary zealot? What does that make the rest of us?

Mr Cordiano: All I would say to the member for Etobicoke West is that he's been acting as a great cheerleader the last couple of days, so maybe that will get him into cabinet. Keep up that cheerleading role, because that may get you places.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Etobicoke West is not in his own seat.

Mr Cordiano: The minister would do well if he would put the interests of fairness ahead of his own, as I said, being an ideologue and the revolutionary zealot that he's been throughout this strike. I know that he looks like a fair man, but he hasn't been very fair throughout these proceedings with OPSEU. Let me just point out how he has not been fair.

The fact of the matter is that the front-line workers, the OPSEU workers, will be facing the brunt of any cuts that are made; 75% of the cuts will be made within the ranks of OPSEU and certainly not within the ranks of AMAPCEO. I think that's cause for concern. The fact that an agreement has been reached with middle managers is fine, but, as I say, bring that same level of fairness to the front-line workers who provide daily service to the public. Treat them in the same way.

It's not visible to us, it's not clear to us, that in fact the government will move to act with fairness because, quite frankly, 27,000 jobs will be lost. Those are the budgetary numbers that were indicated in the economic statement in November of last year. Let's make that clear: It is the brunt of the cuts that will be falling on the part of OPSEU members, and that's why they're acting in the way that they're acting. They're very concerned about who is going to lose their job, and I think the job losses will be up to 27,000, regardless of what the minister indicates here today.

It behooves him to show that kind of fairness and that kind of concern, because the brunt will fall on those OPSEU workers.

I ask the minister to act with the same degree of diligence today on behalf of OPSEU and reach an agreement with those OPSEU workers; reach that settlement soon, not later on.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm interested to see the Minister of Labour's statement about the health and safety agency and her artificial commitments to health and safety. She reiterated today the nine recommendations that were contained in her report, but she left out a very important aspect of it, and I quote from the report, "that it is vitally important that these recommendations are implemented in close consultation with workplace parties." The minister, I would submit, is not consulting.

There was a very interesting letter in today's Toronto Star from Mr Gord Wilson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. "It is an outrageous distortion of the truth for Labour Minister Elizabeth Witmer to make the accusation that Ontario's labour movement `rejected her invitation to participate' in her review of workplace health and safety...." He goes on to say, "What is clear is that the invisible minister is using profoundly misleading statements to cover up her total lack of consultation...."

Southam reported two days ago that "An ashen-faced Labour minister had to run away from workers with a police escort on Monday." Imagine that: Ontario's Labour minister needing a police escort to be taken away from working people. I think that's an absolute shame.

This is the first Minister of Labour in memory who has needed that. This is the first Minister of Labour who wouldn't address the building trades council in Windsor. She sent the poor young fellow from Nepean there to be her lackey, and he got a warm Windsor welcome when he was there.

Successive Labour ministers have had heated differences with management and labour, and I would suggest that this government's policy towards working people is causing unrest which will harm investment, cost jobs and cost working people the security and safety they need in their --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

AMAPCEO AGREEMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I offer my congratulations to AMAPCEO on its first collective agreement. AMAPCEO is a small union negotiating its first collective agreement. It must have been particularly tough against this government, a government that is so keen on slashing at civil servants to pay for its $5-billion tax cut.

The settlement with AMAPCEO does not take away from the fact that this government is planning to lay off up to 27,000 civil servants to pay for its tax cut for the most affluent people in our society, and it doesn't take away from the fact that it has stripped civil servants of the right to keep their job and their union if their work is privatized, a right held by workers in the private sector. Moving away from your position on successor rights would not cost this government an extra penny, so the argument that it would is a false one, and it would go a long way to resolving this dispute.

The minister should also stop violating the media blackout on the OPSEU strike. His repeated comment on how long the talks will take is a serious obstacle to reaching a collective agreement.

This government's actions are bad for the men and women who work for it, but it's also bad for the broader public sector. The morale problems and the economic problems caused by this government, constantly holding the axe over people, will affect public services and communities in a very serious way.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): In response to the announcement by the Minister of Labour, we see once again another piece in the government's attack on the rights of working people. They continue to profess to care about workplace health and safety, and yet every statement, every action, every decision they've made is one of taking away rights of workers, taking away the very things that will make our workplaces safe.

For instance, in the training that she so proudly announced is going to be reformed, the training for both employers' and employees' representatives on the mandatory health and safety committees will go down. The training for workplace health and safety training will go down from 120 hours to 56 hours. They're cutting back on the most important part of workplace health and safety injury prevention, that is, training of employees and employers to recognize and deal with workplace situations that could cause injury.

We know from the evaluations of both managers and employees who attend these courses that they're virtually all saying there wasn't enough time to deal with all the content and they recommended that more time be given. That's the direction one ought to be going in if you truly cared about worker health and safety, but instead this government is cutting back on that training.

What goes out the window? Well, it looks like the second-level course on health and safety law is gone, and that's a neat trick, because if you don't teach workers what their rights are, you don't need to worry about them trying to enforce them, do you? You're also taking away a portion of this that talks about recognizing, assessing and controlling health hazards. Again, how could taking that away possibly make our workplaces safer? Chemical hazard training and biological hazard training are being removed and eliminated. How can removing and eliminating that kind of training make our workplaces safer? It can't.

It doesn't take any kind of rocket scientist to realize that all these steps are hurting the ability of employers and employees to make their workplace a safer place.

What else has gone out the window? Musculoskeletal injury prevention. What is that all about? In part, it's about repetitive strain injury. Where have we heard this government talking about repetitive strain injury before? How about in the Jackson WCB takeaway plan? This all fits. If we don't teach the employees, the workers there to recognize repetitive strain injury, we don't need to worry about them complaining about the fact we took it away in WCB, which they're planning to do, because they don't know about it.

That's the way this government likes to operate: behind closed doors, no public meetings, do everything in secret, and now: "Let's keep the workers ignorant. Let's not tell the workers or teach the workers about workplace health and safety, because what we're planning to do with WCB is take away their ability to claim for these kinds of rightful injuries anyway."

We have seen nothing but a steady onslaught, attack, on workers in this province, from Bill 7 to Bill 15, the Jackson WCB takeaways, the closing of the workplace health and safety centre and the OPSEU strike. It all says this government has an agenda that's anti-worker and it's showing itself more and more every day.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, I believe that in response to a question regarding the expressway, the Minister of Transportation may have breached standing order 23, deliberately misinterpreting my position on the issue. The minister said, "Here's the same member who didn't want the expressway built. Not too long ago he didn't want it built."

I believe that is a deliberate misinterpretation and misleading of this House to suggest that is the case. I would be happy to submit evidence to you as Speaker as to my position on that and ask the minister to look back at his comments and withdraw the comments --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. You don't have a point. You can ask that in question period. That's not a point of order. Would the member take his seat, please. I believe it would be appropriate to ask a question such as that in question period.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I seek unanimous consent of this House to recognize the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Ms Mushinski: First of all, let me tell you how honoured I feel to have this opportunity to recognize this most important day, the day marking the 36th anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa. Observing this day allows us an opportunity to remember those whose lives were sacrificed in the struggle for racial equality and freedom.

As Ontario's Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, this also provides me with an opportunity to acknowledge the ongoing effort of dedicated people across this province, this nation and in the nations around the world. The hard work of those dedicated individuals reflects the principles and goals of this important day. Their commitment helps to bring our communities together in a spirit of mutual understanding, respect, equality and justice, all towards the end of eradicating racial discrimination.

Just this morning I had the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of a few of those individuals who have committed themselves to promoting racial harmony in our province. I was honoured to meet the winners of this year's awards given by the Human Rights and Race Relations Centre. It was a privilege to honour their leadership and commitment in the area of race relations. They clearly understand the importance of getting involved and the need for seeking new and creative ways to achieve the common community goals of peace and understanding.

Those award winners demonstrated to me that individuals do make a difference when it comes to enhancing the quality of life in this province. The challenges are real, but the positive dividends of getting involved are equally real. In order for individuals to succeed in their efforts to eliminate discrimination, they must be supported by their elected officials and the institutions placed in their care. Discrimination, when it does occur, must be addressed promptly and thoroughly. There is no question about that.

This government is committed to ensuring that the protection of human rights in this province is given its due. We are adamant that reform of the Human Rights Commission must be carried to its conclusion as quickly and sensibly as is conceivable. There must be greater efficiency in case management and prompt and effective delivery of human rights decisions. The seriousness of this issue demands no less.

The province must do its part to help achieve an Ontario in which all residents are treated fairly, justly and equally. We must always keep in mind the commitment and leadership provided in this area by the people of this province. If we do, I am confident that together we can shape a strong and exciting future for our children, our communities and the province as a whole.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I rise in the House today to commemorate this very special international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. This multicultural bow marks the day, March 21, which was declared by the United Nations in 1966 in response to the Sharpeville massacre that happened in South Africa. Also back in 1988, federal and provincial members and ministers in Canada agreed to mark this day. It was a very proud moment at the time and I hope we can continue to recognize this day and days beyond.

I am pleased to see the celebration that accompanies this observation recognized in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as it is both important and necessary to all who make Ontario their home, regardless of our culture or our cultural diversity.

I continue, though, to have concerns that even in our own jurisdiction we see inequalities that continue to exist. We have seen where employment equity and pay equity legislation have been attacked with force, and surely while education of course is the most effective way to deal with discrimination, legislation is just as important to address this terrible disease.

The lack of recognition has put people of ethnic backgrounds who are not the majority in the most vulnerable position. We must continue to strive for more equality in our workplaces and promote the strengths of our differences instead of focusing on stereotypes and misconceptions that poison our homes, our schools, our workplaces and our communities.

Only with the commitment and cooperation of all people can we continue to strive towards the goal of ridding our neighbourhoods of conflicts due to racism. Each of us is entitled to the chance to work, to succeed on our own merit, regardless of birth or background. Each of us has the right to choose our own

part in the world as long as we do no harm to our fellow citizens, the right to believe what we want to believe and to say so, the right to worship any god or no god at all, the right to feel safe in our own neighbourhood or any other neighbourhood. Each of us has the obligation to work if we can, to care for our children and for our parents when the time comes.

We all pay if people are unproductive. We all pay if people are denied their self-interests, their special interests. We cannot afford the cost of racism. Opportunity is lost through this disease that has taken root in our society. Throughout history there are grim reminders of discrimination in all facets of life and in all societies, and here in Ontario and across the world new challenges face us in fighting discrimination even in 1996 that our parents today and grandparents could even dream of happening.

New technologies raise challenges in combating racism when we see the infiltration of hate literature through means such as the Internet and global communications. Nevertheless, we must stay strongly committed to fighting the festering of hate propaganda around us, no matter what the medium.

Fortunately, there are committed groups and individuals at work promoting our strengths together as Ontarians and as Canadians. I am honoured to highlight one very special group like this one for you today. The Urban Alliance on Race Relations is a non-profit charitable organization whose primary goal is to promote a stable and a healthy multiracial environment in the greater Toronto area. It was established 21 years ago by a group of conscientious and concerned Toronto citizens in response to the increasing frequency of verbal and physical attacks against minorities.

You may recall, my colleagues, the late Dr Wilson Head, whose work is universally recognized in respect to the elimination of racism. Dr Head was an inspiration to this organization and his work stands as a pillar for us to emulate.

For the past two decades, the Urban Alliance has been instrumental in identifying and addressing issues of racism. Among the many accolades the Urban Alliance has received over the years, one of the most rewarding accomplishments has been the establishment of Colour of Freedom, an annual festival that utilizes music, forums, artistic presentation and cultural displays to commemorate the United Nations declared International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Every ethnic and racial community has specific days, as we know, throughout the year on which they celebrate their religious and cultural traditions. However, the Urban Alliance believes that a society free from racism, that embraces diversity and celebrates Toronto's ethnic and cultural mosaic, cannot be a reality unless these communities are brought together to share these traditions. In light of this belief, eight years ago the Urban Alliance decided that no better day existed for promoting diversity than March 21.

In a country like Canada, where one of the major cities has been deemed by the United Nations as the most culturally diverse city in the world, commemorating March 21 is a necessity. I had the honour of being the co-chair for this year's Colour of Freedom celebrations, which began with a festival at Harbourfront Centre on Sunday, March 17. In addition to the dynamic display of music and dance and dramatic performances, the festival included an award presentation to CITY-TV's president, Moses Znaimer, in recognition of his commitment to promoting a workforce that reflects Metro's and Toronto's ethnoracial diversity.

The Urban Alliance on Race Relations should be applauded for building bridges between individuals and groups of all backgrounds. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, I extend my sincere congratulations to Moses Znaimer and the hardworking individuals of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations.

Organizations like this cannot do it alone. We must have committed legislators, as we see in the House here, and stand beyond the partisan rhetoric that we oftentimes go into, because it is people's lives that we deal with, people's hopes and people's aspirations. Each day we can see it in the faces of people as they struggle to get work. We see it as they struggle to raise their children because they have been denied because of their place of birth or because of their name, an awkward name that maybe other people cannot pronounce, and they are being discriminated against.

If we are to eliminate racism, we must make that personal commitment to ourselves before we start making legislation. I feel that sometimes we haven't moved to that point of view yet. It takes a lot to do that, I know. Each of us, every one of us is not at all away from racism. We have within ourselves some views that are held that must be eliminated in order to accept us as a community. As we accept each of us in this community, we can be more productive and live in a better place, and then we can tell the United Nations that we are the best country in the world.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have to say that this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is indeed a very important one for us all. Racism causes serious physical, psychological and economic damage for many people of colour, for individuals and communities alike, and as such we have a duty and obligation as legislators to commit ourselves to the elimination of racism.

It is wonderful, of course, for us all to be able to praise equality-seeking people as they do their work in their struggle for equality. To support them is another duty for all of us. But beyond what individuals do, it's what governments do that for me is equally important.

I have to tell you, I struggled to find something very positive to say about the government of Ontario as it relates to this field of anti-racism and anti-discrimination, and I have to tell you, I couldn't find any. It saddens me to say that I could not find too many instances where this government has made a strong commitment towards the elimination of discrimination and racism. I look at all of the programs that we had, and all I have is a catalogue of assaults on policies, programs and statutes. Let me go through them.

You have as a government eliminated the Anti-Racism Secretariat. It was not a nice little race relations program that we had where we all were talking about celebrating our differences. It was something more than that. It was an acknowledgement that racism exists in society and that we have to be proactive towards its elimination. What does this government do? It eliminates the Anti-Racism Secretariat. You tell me, how does that contribute towards an equal society? You tell me how you've done that by eliminating that secretariat.

Let me go through the catalogue of things that you have chopped in the last six or seven months: citizenship development; access to the professional trade demonstration fund; settlement and integration. You have eliminated the anti-racism project fund, the anti-racism operating fund and the anti-racism community placement fund. You're eliminating the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship. This is the catalogue of all of the good things that you were doing for all of the people of Ontario.

Many members will shake their heads. You may not like to hear what I'm saying, but this is what you're doing. Your actions will speak much louder than the shaking of your heads around this particular issue, and I tell you, it contributes very little towards the elimination of discrimination.

The anti-racism office was an acknowledgement that discrimination existed, and it did innovative anti-racism programs. That's what it was doing, because anti-racism isn't something that we can just wish away. It isn't something that we can magically say it's gone; we want it to go away because it hurts. It's something you've got to work at. It's something that I worked on for years. It doesn't come automatically that we are all anti-racists because we simply want it. You've got to work at it.

Let me go on with the list.

Welcome Houses: There were five Welcome Houses in Ontario; by this April, those five Welcome Houses are gone. They were in Hamilton, they were in Mississauga, they were in Scarborough, North York and Toronto. They served 63,000 people a year, immigrants who come to this country with great skills, many of them. Our Welcome Houses served them to give them information, to give them ESL programs and training, to refer them to places where their skills could be best utilized. And what have you done? You've eliminated them. How does eliminating Welcome Houses contribute towards the elimination of discrimination in the society? You tell me, you tell the public, how you've done that.

Provincial funding for ethnospecific agencies has been eliminated. They provided such services as employment training, language classes, housing help etc, to particular newcomer communities. You have done that. You have cut the funding for ethnospecific agencies and then you tell me that, as a government, you're committed towards the elimination of racism. Explain it through your actions. How are you doing that?

You have employment equity, which was our attempt as a government to bring about greater equality for women, for people with disabilities, for people of colour and aboriginal people. And what have you done? You have eliminated that program as well. You said that wasn't good that it contributes to discrimination -- interesting.

It's amazing how everything you're doing is solving the discrimination and racist problems we have in society, and yet all I can give you is a whole catalogue of programs that our government was committed to, that every government should be committed to, if you are genuinely interested in dealing with the issues of racism and discrimination. You can shake the head all you want, some of you; some of you can wave your hand, but the people who are listening will know that when you eliminate all of these programs, you are not helping our immigrant communities, you're not helping our people of colour. You are not a role model of the government towards the elimination of discrimination.

The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation can come here today saying how wonderful it is to give awards to individuals who've done work in the field of anti-racism, but I can tell you that's not good enough. I'm concerned about what you as a government are doing. What are your policies? Tell me what your policies are. What are your programs, other than cutting the ones we have put into place? What are the statutes you've got?

Mr Premier, ministers and backbenchers, tell me the policies you're putting into place to eliminate discrimination and racism. You have none.

But I can tell you this, what the people have learned through all of the things we have done they cannot unlearn. As you continue to gut away at services that hurt, all in the most vulnerable, they will remember and they will get stronger. All I can hope is that you will learn that as you do this, you're not making a very important contribution towards the elimination of racism. I hope you'll learn from it as well, and that all of us can have some hope that this government can do something that can be very helpful in this regard.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier and, Premier, it relates to the issue of the use of the OPP riot squad. I'm aware of and appreciate the fact that terms of reference are now being drawn up for a public inquiry into Monday's events and into the violence that took place on that day. My concern in addressing this question today is with the use and the behaviour of that particular squad during the weeks that this inquiry will take place.

I have to tell you, Premier, that I am particularly concerned because of some of the extremely provocative statements that have been made and continue to be made, particularly by Mr Jay Hope, the head of Monday's OPP unit. You'll be aware that on Tuesday he said, "Anyone who got hurt brought it upon themselves," and yesterday he said he was proud of what his men did, and said, "I would do it again tomorrow."

So I ask, Premier, what assurance you can give us and give the public that we will not see a repeat of the kind of violence that we saw Monday while this inquiry is taking place?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): There'll be a full public inquiry. I understand that independent investigations have been called by the OPP, the Police Complaints Board, and the Speaker is responsible for security here.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker and Premier, you'll appreciate the fact that my concern is that the Deputy Premier has indicated this inquiry could take some time, and that over the course of the next weeks and the next months, perhaps, we can fully expect that we are going to see more demonstrations at Queen's Park.

We can expect that the agenda of slash-and-burn cuts that your government is pursuing is going to mean that we're going to see demonstrations of nurses, health care workers, patients who are concerned about broken commitments on health care, and we can expect to see a lot of angry teachers who have been given pink slips and are worried about their jobs, and maybe angry parents who feel that you've broken your commitments not to cut classroom education.

All of these, Premier, are legitimate concerns and will lead to legitimate demonstrations on the part of the public, and I am asking you what assurance you can give as Premier that these people can come to this place of democracy, can come to Queen's Park and can exercise their legitimate right to protest your policies without fear for their personal safety. What assurance can you give that before this inquiry is completed those protesters will not be met by an OPP riot squad whose leader still seems to have the attitude that his role is to send his troops charging into crowds with their billy clubs?

Hon Mr Harris: The member raises concerns and I'm sure the Speaker has been listening. I would be happy to reiterate and refer them to the Speaker.

Mrs McLeod: I would expect that if there is a review taking place on the part of the Ontario Provincial Police separately from the public inquiry, if that's something which is available in short order it would be made not to the Speaker but indeed to the Solicitor General. I'm appreciative of the public inquiry, but my concern is with what will happen between now and then and with the need for an assurance that demonstrators are not going to be met with that potential violence or be intimidated by the threat of it.

My concerns are increased by the fact that the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the OPP, has referred to what happened on Monday as being appropriate restraint, and because at this point not a single member of your government, including yourself, Premier, has dissociated themselves from Mr Hope's comments that people who got hurt on Monday brought it upon themselves.

I suggest, Premier, that what happened Monday will be the focus of a public inquiry but that it is not an isolated occurrence, that it is the result of a building sense of confrontation, and it's the result of a climate that has been made more tense by your government's readiness to meet demonstrators with concrete barriers and with police in full riot gear. Premier, I don't think anybody believes that we can continue to see the public intimidated or that we, as legislators, are comfortable continuing to work in an armed camp.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Question, please.

Mrs McLeod: I ask, Premier, what steps you are prepared to take to ensure that citizens of this province who come to this place to legitimately and peacefully express their views are not met with violence even when their views are in opposition to yours, and I ask whether at least you are prepared to ensure that the Solicitor General will review the use and the operating procedures of the OPP unit and make any necessary changes between now and the time of that public inquiry report.

Hon Mr Harris: It's the responsibility of the Speaker and I'm sure he'll do that.

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet. Last week a tender was let to Signature Building Maintenance Systems to take over the office cleaning function in the Queen's Park complex. Could you confirm for me today that as a result of this tender, half of the full-time staff and a third of the part-time staff will be laid off and that the remaining workers will be forced to accept a 37% pay cut and lose all their employment benefits? Are these the facts, Minister? Is this what other workers can expect from your government in the future? Why would you do this kind of thing?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): We have been looking at various options of downsizing the government, making the government more efficient and more effective, reducing costs for the taxpayer. We have gone through a tender process, as all governments do, I might say. This is a very common form of proposal through municipal, federal and provincial governments that put out a tender to seek on behalf of the taxpayer the best value and the most efficient way to provide a service.

I don't have the precise numbers of people who are involved. I do know, though, that even before this government took office, even under the previous government sitting over here, the NDP, and I'm quite certain under the Liberal government 1985 to 1990, many of the functions referred to, the maintenance functions in the buildings under the jurisdiction of the government, were performed by the private sector. This is one more initiative of the government to do better, to deliver services better at lower cost to the taxpayers.

Mr Duncan: The minister's answer is an insult to the people who are losing their jobs, many of whom have worked for the government for years. I'd like the Chair of Management Board to look up in the gallery and look at those ladies. Those are the ladies who have been cleaning our offices. Their average length of service is 14 years. Many of them have more than 20 years. Most of them will now, the ones that remain, be making less than $10, but the minister didn't mention two points, and I think some of those seals in the back who are clapping will want to know this.

It has been suggested to us that in fact the company that won the bid was not the low bidder, that it didn't have the lowest bid, that it wasn't the lowest bidder. It has also been suggested to us that the company that won the bid did not even meet the prequalification standards. So what do we have going on here?

You just told this House that you were acting in the best interests of the taxpayers. If that's the case, why was the winning company not the lowest bidder? And is this how you're going to continue to treat ladies like that who have more than 20 years of service to this province and the people in this province?

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Look them in the face, David, they're right up there.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order, order. The member for Windsor-Riverside is out of order.

Hon David Johnson: These are always difficult situations. There's no question about that. The problem we face is, as my colleague has indicated, that previous governments have put us in this sort of position: the spending of the Liberal government between 1985 and 1990, an increase of spending of $10 billion in three years, the deficits of the NDP government in five years, increasing the debt of the province of Ontario.

I will say one more thing, that while this is difficult, I still firmly believe that the human resource policies of the province of Ontario, in terms of severance provisions, in terms of benefits and salaries, is unequalled, frankly, in government services. Yes, there are situations that are difficult and have to be dealt with, but this government is attempting to rein in costs, to make government sustainable, and we're trying to do that to the best of our ability. And this is one of the difficult circumstances --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton East is out of order, and he's not in his own seat.

Mr Duncan: The minister's answer rings really hollow. If in fact you're trying to act in the best interests of the taxpayers, would you now confirm that the company that won the bid was not in fact the low bidder? Would you confirm that for this House, because if you're acting to save money, why didn't you take the lowest bid?

Will you confirm to this House that when the tender was let this summer by your government -- it has nothing to do with your false statements about previous government; this has to do with you and your government -- there was no requirement for successor rights? That has been the case since this tender's been let for more than 20 years, and in this case, the work has been done by the private sector for the last 20 years. I hope you'll confirm that.

Finally, on the issue of severance, these workers, by your laws, were not entitled to severance. The union itself has negotiated, as I understand it, a deal to get these workers some severance, but there was no provision for severance.

I would suggest to you, Minister, that not only have you not acted in the best interests of these workers, you haven't acted in the best interests of the taxpayers. Will you come clean with this House and with the people of this province, that this agenda's about rewarding your friends and not dealing with working people?

Hon David Johnson: I'm puzzled about the reference of rewarding friends. I don't know what that particular allegation is. The member opposite asks what I can confirm about this particular tender. I will confirm that the policy of the province of Ontario is to accept the best tender, considering price and quality, and I will confirm that all tenders must meet the qualifications. I can assure the member that this is the policy of the province of Ontario. I don't have all the details of this particular tender before me here today, but those are the policies of the province of Ontario.

We're looking for the best price and the best quality of service for the people of the province of Ontario, and I would reiterate that they're difficult situations that have to be dealt with. But the human resource policies of the province are very fair and as generous as possible, given the circumstance that we've been left with, a $100-billion debt from the previous government and deficits of $10 billion a year.

The Speaker: New question. Third party.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the same minister. Minister, last night I met with the workers who belong to the union that is being attacked by your government. I listened to and looked at those workers and I saw the faces of people whose lives were being devastated. Many, in fact most of them, are Portuguese-Canadian women. Many of them have spouses who are in the construction industry who are also out of work. They're the primary income earner and they don't know what they're going to do in the future.

Mr Minister, many of those workers were crying as their union representative described to them the situation that your government has placed them in. As a result of your anti-worker Bill 7, these workers who have enjoyed rights for 20 years now face the prospect of unemployment. Of those few workers who do manage to stay employed, many will be part-time; they're going to have over 30% wage cuts, few benefits, no union security. In fact, a lot of these women are terrified at even being here today because the new employer won't recognize seniority, and if their face is on TV, there's a good chance that any possibility they had for a job is now gone.

The Speaker: Would you put your question, please.

Mr Christopherson: They are here today, Minister, because they realize they have to stand up and fight. This is the only chance they have.

Please stand on your feet, look at those people and tell them and the rest of Ontario why Bill 7 makes this a better Ontario, because they're being turfed out of work. Tell the people of Ontario how that makes --

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite asks about successor rights, and I think it's well known that the final offer we have given to the union, to OPSEU and indeed to AMAPCEO, before the blackout is that we would give reasonable efforts to attempt to transfer the jobs with the new employer. Yes, we have to make the government more effective and more efficient. We've certainly been put in that position by the spending and the taxing and the deficits of the previous governments, and we need to downsize and we need to restructure.

We have stated, through the offer that's on the table, before the blackout that we would give the efforts that we can to ensure that those employees will move with the new employer. I will stand on my feet here today and say that the very provision which we have put on the table for OPSEU we will observe with the people involved in this particular contract.

Mr Christopherson: There's no question that your anti-worker Bill 7 and the denial of successor rights are a key reason why we have an OPSEU strike in this province. It's also the only reason why these workers are facing unemployment.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): What about the debt?

Mr Christopherson: We hear the backbenchers of the Tory government talk about the deficit, and therein lies our problem. They don't want to talk about the people who are affected, the lives that are affected. It's only the dollars.

Minister, what we want to know from you is: How do you justify to these workers that because you're taking their jobs away, the wealthy in this province are going to get a tax cut? How do you tell them that destroying their lives is worth giving the wealthy in this province a 30% tax cut? How do you justify that to these workers?

Hon David Johnson: Again, I would reiterate that, first of all, what I would say to those workers and to the member opposite is that the government will pursue the offer that it has put on the table to the union and that we will make our efforts to help those employees --

Interruption.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Welland-Thorold is totally out of order and I won't warn him again in this Legislature.

Hon David Johnson: I will reiterate what I told the member opposite in the first part of his question. We had on the table, before the blackout, that we would give all reasonable efforts to assist the employees to go with the new employer. We will do that. We will give our best efforts.

I would also say that this government has to look in terms of the future and the position the government is in. We are looking to create jobs. We are looking to have jobs not only for the people who are here today but for hundreds of thousands of residents of Ontario. How do we do that? We do that by balancing the budget, we do that by eliminating the labour bill, we do that by many other techniques to remove barriers to business in the province of Ontario. That's precisely what we're doing, and I might say the income tax reduction that the member opposite is alluding to is a key component of that.

By taking these measures, we will encourage investment and job growth in the province of Ontario. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created in Ontario.

Mr Christopherson: The easiest way to create jobs in this province is perhaps to keep the ones we've already got.

Let me ask the minister about comments that were made to Mr Alan Ferens, who is the business manager for the Service Employees International Union, which has represented these workers for over 20 years, by one of the principals of the corporation that won the bid, a Mr Hermes Iordanous. Apparently, Mr Iordanous told Mr Ferens that indeed he did not qualify to bid on the tender because he didn't meet the prequalification process. He told Mr Ferens that he then contacted his MPP to help him out. His MPP in this case happens to be you, sir. As has been pointed out, we understand that this was not the lowest tender.

We also understand that this is the only company that did not talk to the union prior to the bidding process. So, Minister, what I would like to know from you is, did you or your office play any role at all in assisting this corporation and if they did, what was that role?

Hon David Johnson: I wish to assure the member opposite that all of those who are involved in tendering in this process went through the regular process. All the policies of the province of Ontario were followed in reaching a decision on this matter and the policies of the province of Ontario require that the tender be accepted in terms of price, in terms of quality and --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is out of order and out of his seat.

Hon David Johnson: -- I wish to assure the member that all qualifications associated with this tender must be met and that's what happened in this case.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This is very disturbing and it's unfortunate that this side of the gallery is closed and that these women could not sit facing the minister when he was giving those kinds of answers.

WORKFARE

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding his ruminations about his workfare program. On Tuesday, in response to a question from the member for Scarborough Centre, the minister described a project of the Oshawa Boy Scouts Camp Samac, which had received a $100,000 grant from General Motors.

At that time, the minister said, "This is a project that will improve the community, and these people who will work on this program will have received training and will receive the networking possible to receive real jobs." The minister went on to describe this project in various interviews with the media, the newspapers and various of the electronic media in which he described this project as sort of an example of how his workfare program might work and how it might benefit workers and people who are receiving social assistance.

Could the minister explain, has he finalized the agreement between his ministry and the Oshawa Boy Scouts camp on this project, and if he has, could he explain when that was finalized and when the project will proceed?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): To be correct and accurate, what I have been describing are suggestions that the community and organizations in the various communities across this province have been coming up with and indicating their interest both to me and members of our caucus.

Quite frankly, our workfare program, Ontario Works, is intended to do several things and I appreciate the opportunity to speak about it because we're intending to do several things: first of all, to give people an opportunity to improve some skills, give them the opportunity to network to perhaps lead to real jobs, give them an opportunity to improve their community and have a certain amount of community support.

That's what we're doing right now through our consultation process. We've been consulting with various organizations in various areas across the province and certainly, through our committee of MPPs, we will be further doing consultations to make sure that we truly look at the programs that are going to assist and improve communities. Once again, these are suggestions that are coming to me and we've made no final decisions on this at this time.

Mr Wildman: That's even more confusing because we consulted with Mr Al Freeman of the Oshawa District Council Boy Scouts of Canada and he indicated to us that it was not his proposal to you, that quite frankly, he said, "We have not agreed to anything." As a matter of fact, Mr Freeman said that after meeting with the minister in Oshawa, they had serious concerns about the workfare, how it would be managed, who would cover the costs of supervision, and Mr Freeman had said that neither the Boy Scouts nor the community clubs, the Kiwanis, that met with the minister are in any position to supervise the workfare project and aren't interested in it.

As a result of the minister's remarks in the House and outside of this place, Mr Freeman has been spending his time answering telephone calls from the contractors who have already bid on this project who want to know what's going on, and he's having to assure them that, no, their bids are in fact being processed in the normal way. He's also had calls from donors who don't intend their contributions to support workfare projects.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mr Wildman: He's had to confirm to the Kiwanis Club and to General Motors that they are not involved in a workfare project.

The Speaker: Put your question, please. Put your question.

Mr Wildman: Is it the case that the minister inadvertently misled the House on Monday when he said that this was an example of one of the projects that he would be proceeding with as part of a workfare initiative?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't believe I said I was proceeding with this particular project. I indicated, of course, that there are a number of recommendations coming from the community.

Frankly, I went to Oshawa at the invitation of the group. I actually saw the camp; I was there. Afterwards, we met with a number of the service groups and organizations in Oshawa to have a two-way dialogue to get rid of some of the misconceptions that perhaps the leader of the third party right now is trying to get out, certainly, dealing with a number of issues including, of course, the fact that workfare was not going to be a make-work project, but there are going to be programs to improve the community, programs to help people on social assistance.

Certainly, these are the messages that we needed to get out because of a lot of, I guess, the misconceptions that are being put forth by other people.

I've met with a number of organizations across the province, with the MPPs and without, and certainly at the ministry, and we've got a lot of support for this program right now from many of the organizations.

Mr Wildman: The minister has indicated that somehow I'm trying to put forward "misconceptions," I think the word was he used, about this project. He also said "other people." I don't know whether he's including Mr Freeman in that group, but he certainly has no axe to grind in this matter.

Why won't the minister come clean and say, admit, that in his interviews with the press and on the radio this morning and the electronic media generally, that he hasn't had anything concrete to say about workfare, he doesn't have any proposals, he doesn't have a plan, he doesn't know how it's going to work and he doesn't even know if it will work, and that he is consulting with people, certainly, but at this point he doesn't have any plan and he doesn't know where he's going on workfare.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It really astounds me how the leader of the third party doesn't recognize the value that there is to assisting people to somehow get back to work. Certainly, it is.

We've indicated that we're doing a lot of consulting work right now. We will be making an announcement, as I said, in the spring. But frankly, we get criticized when we don't consult with people and we get criticized when we do consult with people, and I don't know if you really realize what you actually want over there.

Clearly, this program is going to be designed to assist people to get off welfare and get real jobs, and it's a program that's designed to be very productive. Quite frankly, when the people out there, Ontarians, are really supportive of a program to assist people, I don't understand what the criticism here is.

I'd just like to share a thought with you here, and this was actually from our estimates, when we were going through this. The quote is, "Your administration is not the first one that has mentioned that to pay people from the public dole from the taxpayers a salary, pay for really in many cases doing nothing, is not the smartest way of conducting affairs." This is of course a quote from Mr Pouliot who was indicating that his party of course wanted to get involved with this type of a program, but unfortunately they didn't have either the gumption or the means to actually produce a program to get people back to work.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question's to the Attorney General. All of us I think are increasingly concerned about the growing incidence of racism and distribution of hate literature. The B'Nai Brith, their League for Human Rights documented the growth in it.

That's why I think many of us were very shocked when your office decided to drop the charges against Ernst Zundel. I can recall -- and these are words that I would support -- you called him:

"A self-identified Nazi...a key figure in a network of Fascists and white supremacists...responsible for publishing and exporting a huge volume of hate propaganda....

"This self-identified Nazi" is responsible for distributing this "not only in Canada but to over 41 countries around the world. The government of Germany has asked that you take every action within your power to stop Ernst Zundel."

We know all of this and we know that all of us, yourself included, had indicated that there was a plan to proceed to prosecute Mr Zundel. The question is this: Why have you decided to drop the charges against Ernst Zundel?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I have been informed by the crown attorneys who are involved in prosecuting these cases and evaluating the evidence that upon screening of the charges -- which were not laid by the police; they were charges laid privately -- there was not enough evidence to proceed and successfully prosecute in this particular case.

Mr Phillips: I assume all of us here in the Legislature and certainly I think the community of Ontario are increasingly getting a sense of frustration, and I think rage is not too strong a word, at a feeling that somehow or other this is going on, that their politicians abhor it, but that nothing happens. Frankly, Minister, you, with all due respect, have contributed somewhat to this.

I can recall when you were in opposition, you were very clear. You said to the public -- this was when you were in opposition -- "Minister, you have it in your power to stop this man. When will you do it?" So I think you can appreciate the sense of frustration in the community when you yourself indicated that you had studied the matter and that it was your opinion that the laws did permit prosecution of Mr Zundel. I think you and all of us can appreciate, as I say, this enormous, growing sense of frustration by the community that they simply don't seem to be able to get forward with this matter.

Really the question to you is, where do we go from here? Will you tell the House how you plan to deal with it? Is it your opinion that the existing laws are sufficient and therefore you will proceed using the existing laws, or is it the ministry's opinion and your opinion that the laws need to be changed and that it is your plan therefore to proceed to ensure that the laws are changed?

Hon Mr Harnick: I share my good friend from Scarborough-Agincourt's concern about this issue, as he well knows. I remind members of the Legislature that the Ministry of the Attorney General does not lay charges.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): That was then; this is now.

Hon Mr Harnick: The ministry doesn't lay the charges.

Mr Cooke: Why don't you apologize for the position you used to take when you were over here?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside's out of order.

Hon Mr Harnick: I think it's very clear that when charges are laid and the proper, factual foundation is available to prosecute those charges, those charges will be prosecuted.

The issue becomes one of the police who lay the charges gathering the necessary evidence in this kind of case, as in any other kind of case, so that we can prosecute successfully and satisfy the community. But these are issues that really need a foundation of facts to prosecute upon, and those facts and the gathering of those facts are the responsibility of those who lay the charges, and those are the police officers.

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to return to the Chair of Management Board on the same issue I raised with him earlier. Minister, on my final supplementary you did not answer the question that I asked you. I asked you very specifically whether or not you knew Mr Iordanous, given the fact that Mr Ferens states unequivocally that Mr Iordanous told him that he did not qualify to bid on the contract during the prequalification process, that he contacted his MPP, which is you, and that as a result of that contact, he suddenly did qualify and ultimately did win the tender, and he wasn't in fact the lowest tender.

I would ask you very directly and very simply, Minister, did you indeed assist Mr Iordanous, do you know Mr Iordanous, do you have any relationship at all and if so, what is that relationship?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I have no relationship with Mr Iordanous. I don't know Mr Iordanous. It's possible I have spoken to Mr Iordanous; I speak to a great number of constituents. I can't recall any such discussion. I had no role to play whatsoever in the selection of -- apparently the winning company is Signature Building Maintenance Systems. I'm unaware of Signature Building Systems. I had no role to play whatsoever in selecting Signature Building Systems and I have no relationship whatsoever with Mr Iordanous.

I would like to also indicate that as a result of this questioning, information does come in and I will say that the contractor, apparently Signature Building Systems, which has been retained, will make all efforts to retain the existing staff. The contractor is proposing to negotiate job-sharing arrangements, to the member opposite, to retain as many of the existing staff as possible. Those staff whom they are unable to retain -- and they indicate that the majority of the staff they will be able to retain -- they have included in their price the cost of termination and severance for all staff who cannot be retained.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, if you think for one minute that suddenly, as a result of this issue being raised in the House, the few crumbs that may now be offered to these workers is sufficient compensation for the rights they've lost under Bill 7, you're dead wrong, and that applies to everyone else who's being offered less than the rights they had before you brought in your anti-worker Bill 7.

Let me ask you again, Minister, what your relationship was with Mr Iordanous, and by you, I also mean your staff, because basically what you're doing is calling someone a liar. Either Mr Ferens is lying or Mr Iordanous is lying or you are, but someone is, because the stories don't jibe.

I would ask you today, Minister, will you table all documents relevant to this bidding process so that we can all satisfy ourselves that this entire process was aboveboard? Will you table those documents today?

Hon David Johnson: I'll simply look into this matter as a result of the question, but I can assure the member opposite that I have no relationship with Mr Iordanous; I had no role to play whatsoever in the successful bidder, apparently a company called Signature Building Systems. In terms of the member's concern for the employees, I will say that apparently one of the reasons why the lowest bidder was not taken was that the lowest bidder intended to lay off all of the existing staff, but if that's what you want, we could have gone that route,

whereas the successful bidder, Signature Building Systems, has indicated that it will retain the majority of the staff.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, the member for Sarnia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia has the floor.

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, I have a number of people in my riding who are the parents of special-needs children. What initiatives has the minister taken to recognize the value of innovative programs providing for special-needs children as they face the challenges of the education system?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. It has been my privilege and really a pleasure over the past few months to visit different schools and to talk to educators across the province who are committed to providing exceptional programs and really innovative programs to help students who have very special needs.

My ministry recognizes the achievements of those schools and school boards through the Exemplary Practice in Integration Awards. These awards are given to schools and to school boards that use innovative practices in providing special education services across the province.

I'm pleased to inform the member and to inform other members in the chamber that some 353 nominations for these awards arrived last year, and that as a point of qualifying for the awards, the boards or schools agree to share those practices with other boards and schools across the province. I think that's an extraordinarily useful tool for those educators who are dedicating a tremendous amount of effort to meet the needs of these very special children. A hundred and five schools qualified for awards last year and I was pleased to present some of those personally.

Mr Boushy: Two of the learning disorders more recently diagnosed are attention deficit disorder, or ADD, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. What efforts has the minister made in recognizing the needs of these students?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sure, as many people in this chamber know, the ADD and ADHD, the extent of the learning disabilities from those disorders are only beginning, I think, to be fully understood by educators. I'm pleased to say that there are some 15 places now in the province, at three of our demonstration schools, where people are receiving help for those disorders and where we're learning more about the extent of those disorders.

My ministry provides up to $20,000 per year per pupil to school boards that are working with students who have difficulties that come from ADHD, and I know that we look forward to working with educators in the future, discovering new ways of helping people who have these disorders and helping them in life and in their education process. So I thank the member for that question.

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, yesterday you made an entirely inappropriate and unhelpful statement in the House blaming the OPSEU strike for less than adequate winter road maintenance during our most recent spring storm, certainly poor judgement and a shameless shifting of responsibility from where it belongs.

But, Minister, you've shown poor judgement in relation to this issue long before the strike began, initially by admitting to a $7-million cut in winter road maintenance, which only came to light after we in the opposition forced you to admit it, and then by continually denying that these cuts had any impact on those of us who drive the highways of Ontario. We now learn, Minister, that indeed your budgetary constraints were totally unrealistic. In fact, you were forced to spend millions more than you wanted to because of the severe winter we've all experienced in this province.

Minister, will you now admit your mistake? Will you apologize to the people of Ontario and will you commit to rescinding those cuts for the next fiscal year?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I will admit to the people of Ontario that this government acted very responsibly, and very fiscally responsibly, because we managed to make sure that our roads were safe throughout a very, very difficult winter. It proves, even with the strike, under the conditions that we've had to work with, the tremendous job that the people have done, and the savings are there. Right from the beginning I said we would spend whatever it would take --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Essex South is out of order and out of his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I won't warn him again.

Hon Mr Palladini: Right from the beginning we said this government was going to spend whatever it would need to make sure that our roads are safe, and I believe the people of Ontario know we have done just that.

Mr Gravelle: Don't be embarrassed to admit if you've made a mistake. You've now learned you can't legislate snowfall. You've had the opportunity to travel some of the roads in northern Ontario, I understand, to observe the types of conditions that are faced by northern drivers and all of us on a daily basis. You've received thousands of petitions, hundreds of letters from concerned people and groups, municipalities, resolutions are being passed by municipalities, letters from people like in the township of Schreiber who were concerned about a four-day highway closure that was absolutely unnecessary.

Our highways have never been less well maintained than they were this past year. There's no question about that.

I ask you, for the sake of all Ontarians who have faced the insecurity of hazardous roads this winter and who have felt fear for the safety of their families, their neighbours, their children on school buses, will you commit to bringing back road maintenance to the level that everyone in this province deserves, demands and expects from this or any government?

Hon Mr Palladini: I will commit to two things: that the level of maintenance on our highways is going to be maintained in a safe way, and I will also commit to look for whatever saving we may arrive at from an administrative point, and just doing business in a smarter way. That's something the member across the road doesn't have a clue about.

SEWAGE AND STORMWATER TUNNEL

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the honourable member across the way for the question. The member is quite right. Yesterday, in fact, we did make a decision to allow the sewage and stormwater tunnel project to go ahead. We are actually quite pleased with this decision because we think this is very good news for the people of Ontario. We think this is an opportunity to finally establish a method to clean up the beaches in the Toronto area. This is an issue that has been of concern to the people in this area for some time now. We believe we've made an excellent decision, and the approval process is one that we are confident in.

Ms Lankin: I'm sorry, and with all due respect, Minister, from day one you have never understood the issues at stake for the environment here in the Metro area. Once again you're completely incapable of answering the question with respect to coordination of master sewage planning between Metro and Toronto, the issue that has always been at stake. Your recommendations include -- excuse the pun -- some watered-down version of coordination of storm sewer planning, which has got nothing to do with the environmental concerns raised by sewage planning, the overall system.

This minister is not listening to people, because in fact the representations that have been made time and time again said, "Please don't proceed, but if you're going to proceed without a full environmental assessment, at least place conditions on Toronto and Metro that they must coordinate their master sewage planning."

Will you today give us this commitment, that you will add the condition to your announcement that you're about to make that before Toronto can proceed with this tank tunnel, it must coordinate master sewer planning with Metro so that we have some environmental approach that makes sense for our lakes, our rivers, our health and our environment, for all the people in Metro?

Hon Mrs Elliott: We are very confident that we've made an excellent decision because we are concerned about the quality of the water in this province. With the decision of going forward with the building of this tunnel, the water quality will be improved to such a degree that beaches that now are open only 25% of the time will be open, we anticipate, 75% of the time.

With regard to the sewage which you are so concerned about, in fact the sewage sludge that will finally be filtered out as it flows through this tunnel amounts to less than 0.5% of all that goes to the Ashbridges Bay facility.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question today is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. As the minister is aware, last November there was an incident in my riding where abnormal amounts of tritium were released into Lake Huron. Can the minister tell the House today what action has been taken to address this occurrence?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): To address the concerns that arose as a result of that incident last fall, a steering committee was formed. The steering committee looked at ways to improve the notification and follow-up procedures in such an event. I am pleased to report that as a result of that effort there is now a protocol in place which outlines a series of procedures to deal with such occurrences. It establishes the roles and the responsibilities that we believe will ensure improved responsibility and accountability if such an occurrence were to occur again.

Mrs Fisher: I am pleased to see that the steering committee has responded to the public concern about the safety of drinking water drawn from Lake Huron. Will that protocol be made public?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I would like to thank the members of the committee who acted so quickly and so decisively in this matter. Yes, in fact, the results of that are available to anyone interested in seeing them. I would like to add that the protocol was unanimously approved by representatives from Ontario Hydro, from Bruce township, the local medical officer of health, my ministry, Emergency Measures Ontario and the Ministry of Labour. We believe this will significantly improve the protection and the confidence of those citizens who rely on Lake Huron for their drinking water.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My question is to the Attorney General. The government's bullying tactics seem to know no boundaries. In addition to a long list of people on the government hit list, which has included seniors and children, the government is now preparing to take on single mothers and their children through its expenditure reduction in the family support plan. First this government floated the idea of charging single parents $2 just to pick up the phone and dial family support numbers. We now know that the minister is contemplating severe staffing reductions.

My question is simple: Will the minister confirm to this House how many layoffs will result from this decision and what impact this reduction in staffing will have on the enforcement and recovery of delinquent payments?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): On January 29 when the House was convened, I was asked a very similar question about the $2 fee for family support plan phone call inquiries. I said at that time and I say again that there is no truth to that and it will not happen.

I also said that we are looking at the family support plan so that we can develop a plan that does a better job collecting the almost $900 million of outstanding payments, mostly owing to women and children by delinquent spouses who have not complied with family support orders. We are being motivated to develop a system that works, that provides fast payment to those within the plan who are awaiting cheques, and that also provides proper collection procedures to collect the huge and escalating outstanding debt.

Mr Sergio: It does not take a genius to figure out that if you reduce the number of people enforcing the provisions under the Family Support Plan Act, the successful collection and recovery of family support payments will be severely affected. Having said this, I would state two important facts which seem to contradict what the minister has stated now and on previous occasions.

First, the real amount of money in arrears is closer to $551 million, not the $900 million the minister has suggested. Second, of the $551 million in arrears, 55% of these cases have funds flowing and the arrears are being paid down.

In light of these statistics, I would ask the minister again if he would reconsider his attack on single women and children and rethink his commitment to slashing the number of front-line office staff.

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly if the number is $550 million, it's $550 million too much. If there are 45% of orders out there in which no funds are flowing, that's 45% too many, and we will be motivated by trying to develop the best system that we can to collect the arrears and to run the family support plan in the most efficient way to ensure that people receive their payments on time and that they are able to obtain the service of the plan when they need it. That's what's motivating any decision-making that we will enter into.

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Back to the same minister, the Chair of Management Board, on the issue we've been talking about here. Things seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser. I just spoke with Mr Ferens again, as a result of your answer to my last question, and there seems to be a serious discrepancy between what you say the way things went down and the way the union sees it, in terms of their discussions with the principal of this corporation.

Mr Ferens advises me, Minister, that he has spoken to all four of the other bidders and all four of them were prepared to recognize the union. This is the only one that wasn't going to recognize the union. Therefore, Minister, we seem to have a legitimate question in terms of the allegation by Mr Ferens that he was told by one of the principals of the corporation that he contacted your office -- that is how he qualified through the prequalification process and ultimately was awarded the tender. He was not the lowest. I understand he may not have even been the second lowest.

But given the fact that all of the other bidders, according to the union, were prepared to recognize the union, and there are these questions around the propriety of the process, are you prepared to state today categorically that neither you nor anyone else in your office, nor any involvement in your riding association had anything at all to do with this? Secondly, will you table all the pertinent documents around this so that we can clear it up once and for all?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I can certainly assure you, as a result of the member's questions here today, that I'm going to look into this very thoroughly. I will pass along the information. I can only pass along to you the information that I know, the information that has been given to me by the staff of Management Board.

That information is that the tender that was selected involved the retention of the majority of the staff, and it also made a commitment to negotiate job-sharing arrangements to assure that as many of the staff would be retained as possible. I can only pass along the information. I assure you I'll look into it and I'll make a report. The information I have is, again, that the lowest bidder did not intend to retain the existing staff. That's the information I have. If that information is incorrect, I assure you that I will present the information to this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I'd like to move the weekly business statement for next week.

Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the week of March 25, 1996.

Next week, as time permits, we will be dealing with the following legislation:

Third reading of Bill 19, the Advocacy Act; third reading of Bill 20, the Planning Act; second reading of Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act; second reading of Bill 30, the Education Quality and Accountability Office Act.

For Thursday morning, March 28, private members' business, we will consider ballot number 15, standing in the name of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and ballot number 16, standing in the name of the member for Lambton.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Progressive Conservative 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 into 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;

"We therefore, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care workers of Metro community, urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend plans to implement cuts to our present child care programs across our province and to restore funding to the previous levels."

I've signed my signature to this.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition from numerous people from the city of Timmins, and the petition reads as follows:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government plans to sell off public services to corporations that will run them for profit; and

"Whereas after the corporate takeover, it will be strictly user-pay for the services we now depend on; and

"Whereas our clean air and water standards and workers' safety rules are being relaxed because corporations don't like rules that interfere with profit; and

"Whereas privatization is being sold as a way to save tax dollars even though large companies pay little or no taxes while individual Canadians pay most of the total tax bill; and

"Whereas Bill 7 was introduced in the interest of facilitating its privatization agenda by stripping public sector workers of the rights to retain fair working conditions when services are transferred or privatized;

"We, the following citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to ban any selloff of Ontario public services and reinstate successor rights to public service employees."

I've signed this petition.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I present this petition on behalf of the member for Kenora, Mr Miclash:

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations, the government removes significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition without attacking basic rights and dignities of hardworking people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

Madam Speaker, there are thousands who have signed from the good area of Kenora, Ontario.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I have the honour today of presenting a petition to the government of Ontario. It is signed by more than 150 concerned citizens in the great riding of Lake Nipigon.

"Whereas Bill 26 exempts the government as an employer from key legislation governing pensions in Ontario; and

"Whereas employees of the Ontario government have been stripped of their right to access pension security, a right that other workers in Ontario have; and

"Whereas this represents the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in pension benefits from working people; and

"Whereas as a result thousands of workers who face being laid off in the coming months could be forced into poverty;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to reinstate the rights removed by

schedule L of Bill 26."

Simply put, those fine people are asking for the right to be like other Ontarians, simply the right to stay alive.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

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

"Whereas we, the citizens of Ontario, are deeply concerned about Bill 26, the omnibus act to restructure Ontario, and believe that in a democracy government never has the right to use any means to do what it wants, particularly regarding actions which intrude upon every citizen's life, yet this is precisely what Bill 26 proposes; it authorizes the cabinet, with minimal debate, to make decisions for citizens at any time by amending over 40 laws in 16 areas of vital importance;

"Whereas while most citizens agree with the aim of reducing Ontario's debt, this should not be done behind their backs by undermining the normal and necessary democratic process of open debate and decision-making, and in a democracy the end does not justify the means;

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

"We urge the government to withdraw the undemocratic and dangerous omnibus Bill 26 and regroup its amendments into separate bills," which they didn't do, "which the public can understand and its elected representatives openly debate."

I'll affix my signature to it.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition from one of the Metro Housing buildings, Leonardo Court, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Do not implement user fees and/or copayments to the Ontario drug benefit program. User fees are not the solution; they only deter the most vulnerable from getting the help they really need. These fees will further diminish universal health care in Ontario with the poor and seniors bearing the brunt of your proposed actions."

I sign my signature to this.

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

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

"That a recommendation by the psychiatric hospitals restructuring committee to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital be rejected.

"We believe the restructuring committee has not fully considered the case for retaining St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

"We believe the hospital and the community of St Thomas provide care and caring for psychiatric patients which is equal to, and better than, London.

"We believe closure of the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital will have a devastating impact on the economy and the residents of St Thomas and Elgin county.

"We believe London can better absorb the impact of closure of the London Psychiatric Hospital.

"Finally, we believe it would be cheaper for government to retain the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital in terms of capital improvements required to both facilities.

"Therefore, we request that the government refrain from endorsing and implementing the recommendation to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital."

ROAD SAFETY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Huron Line/Talbot Road is one of the busiest roads in the province; and

"Whereas over 1.5 million trucks use this portion of the highway each year; and

"Whereas this stretch of highway contains the first set of traffic signals for vehicles which have travelled on a freeway for many hours; and

"Whereas accidents have caused significant hardship to families that have needlessly lost loved ones in tragic accidents;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Minister of Transportation to recognize the need to make significant changes to reflect the hazards that exist Highway 3/Talbot Road by reducing the speed limit to 70 kilometres per hour and installing advance warning signals to reflect the concerns of the community."

On behalf of the many people from both Windsor and the town of La Salle, I hereby affix my signature.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here yet another petition where a number of people -- I would say probably somewhere around 400 or 500 people -- from the city of Timmins have sent a petition to this government. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations, the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition without attacking basic rights and dignities of hardworking people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I have signed that petition and support their cause.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition signed by approximately 100 people.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition without attacking basic rights and dignities of hardworking people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I affix my name to this petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a petition here in support of junior kindergarten, as junior kindergarten has been axed all across the province by this government.

"Whereas the Conservative government's stated plan in the Common Sense Revolution is to improve the long-term economic prospects of Ontario; and

"Whereas research from all over the world shows early childhood education leads to lower dropout rates, improved reading, math and language skills, less chance of future unemployment, teen pregnancy or delinquency and higher enrolment in post-secondary education, thus resulting in a better-educated, highly skilled workforce; and

"Whereas this Conservative government states it is committed to ensuring a larger share of the education dollar goes to the classroom; and

"Whereas this Conservative government fully expects boards to meet transfer reductions by cutting costs outside the classroom; and

"Whereas this Conservative government has made junior kindergarten a matter of choice for local boards and has reduced the funding for junior kindergarten;

"Therefore, to ensure this Conservative government meets its stated commitments in regard to education and to Ontario, we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education and Training to restore the funding for junior kindergarten to its previous level and require all school boards to offer junior kindergarten classes."

I affix my name to this important petition.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have another petition from the Metro Housing company. This particular building is Westdon Apartments, 6250 Bathurst Street. It reads:

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

"Do not implement user fees and/or copayments to the Ontario drug benefit program. User fees are not the solution. They only deter the most vulnerable from getting the help they really need. These fees will further diminish universal health care in Ontario, with the poor and seniors bearing the brunt of your proposed actions."

I accompany a whole roll of hundreds of people who have signed with respect to these cuts, and I submit them to you as well.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which has been presented to me with the request I present it to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas this Conservative government's stated plan in the Common Sense Revolution is to improve the long-term economic prospects for Ontario; and

"Whereas research from all over the world shows early childhood education leads to lower dropout rates, improved reading, math and language skills, less chance of future unemployment, teen pregnancy or delinquency and higher enrolment in post-secondary education, thus resulting in a better-educated, highly skilled workforce; and

"Whereas this Conservative government states it is committed to ensuring a larger share of the education dollar goes to the classroom; and

"Whereas this Conservative government fully expects boards to meet transfer reductions by cutting costs outside the classroom; and

"Whereas this Conservative government has made junior kindergarten a matter of choice for local school boards and has reduced the funding for junior kindergarten;

"Therefore, to ensure this Conservative government meets its stated commitments in regard to education and to Ontario, we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education and Training to restore the funding for junior kindergarten to its previous level and require all school boards to offer junior kindergarten classes."

I present this to the assembly and affix my signature to it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Time for one last petition. The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Whoa. Rotation. There is another party over here.

The Acting Speaker: I am so sorry, I see a member from the NDP caucus. The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'll have to take a look at the seating arrangements.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "Whereas the Hamilton-Wentworth health action task force, as part of their report, has recommended the closure of St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton; and

"Whereas it is recognized the health care system should be made as efficient as possible; and

"Whereas the quality of health care service in our community should not be sacrificed in the name of efficiency; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to protect the quality of health care in Ontario; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that maintaining the presence of St Joseph's Hospital in downtown Hamilton is a vital component of our health care system;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council ensure the continuance of St Joseph's Hospital at its present site."

I add my name to theirs.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Thank you very much, and please accept my apology again.

VISITORS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to recognize an eminent Antiguan, Winston Derrick, and Dr Knolly Hill, in the audience, who are visiting us today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Pursuant to the order of the House of November 16, 1995, Mr Curling presented a report from the standing committee on estimates.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 19,

An Act to repeal the Advocacy Act, 1992, revise the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992, amend the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and amend other Acts in respect of related matters / Projet de loi 19, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, révisant la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement, modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne des questions connexes.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I started on this debate yesterday, which is Bill 19, which is called the Advocacy, Consent and Substitute Decisions Statute Law Amendment Act. I did start my comments with respect to this bill and I'd like to perhaps summarize.

I might say at the outset, for the purposes of the members present and those listening, that my comments will be restricted with respect to the substitute decisions part of the bill. There will be other members of our caucus who will be speaking with respect to the repeal of the advocacy legislation and the consent-to-treatment part of it. So there will be other speakers to follow from our caucus.

With respect to the substitute decisions part of the bill, the amendments include the following:

They retain the basic principles of the legislation that was passed by the previous government: respect for personal choice and enhancement of the dignity of mentally incapable people.

It responds to intense public concerns about potential government interference with powers of attorney.

It clarifies that the private arrangements people make to plan for possible future incapacity will have first priority; in other words, arrangements with respect to members of an individual's family will have priority. If there is no one left, the government will intervene.

It provides for more opportunity and easier processes for a family to become a substitute decision-maker if an advanced planning has not occurred.

It streamlines procedures, reduces bureaucratic red tape and complexity and reflects this government's belief that the majority of family members, service providers and caregivers are acting in good faith and with good intentions.

It eliminates the involvement of the expensive, intrusive professional advocate in the procedures for appointing guardians. There's no question that topic generated the most debate during the committee hearings and during second reading debate and will during third reading debate, particularly from the third party, but we believe this is the route to go.

It clarifies that the public guardian and trustee will act as a guardian only as a last resort, when there is a critical need and there is no other suitable person available or willing to act.

Finally, it facilitates the involvement of local community volunteers in providing assistance with guardianship and services.

So the general intent of the issue with respect to the substitute decisions part of it is, to the government, as it is with other portions of the bill, that the province intervenes only as a last resort.

I did make some comments, and I'll try not to repeat too much of what I said yesterday. Perhaps I could start off to indicate why we are amending the Substitute Decisions Act. It was a belief, after hearing from individuals around this province, not only the hearings that took place by the previous government but our own consultations by members of this House of whatever political party, that the law was filled with gaps and inconsistencies.

For example, we discovered that there was no easy way for families to get legal authority to make financial decisions for their mentally incapable loved ones who had not made powers of attorney. In those situations, families would always have to go to court.

Currently, there are procedures that exist in the Substitute Decisions Act that allow people who are affected to challenge or appeal the appointment of a guardian. The law at present requires that information about legal rights be given in a personal visit from an independent advocate acting on behalf of the Advocacy Commission. We believe that the current law goes too far and creates overly complicated rules and procedures that confuse many people.

We discovered, in discussing this with caregivers, doctors, nurses, members of family, that they were terribly confused as to who they were to take instructions from and what they were to do when confronted with the requirement of assisting incapable people.

In some cases, government could interfere in people's private affairs even when they had made powers of attorney. We discovered later that when powers of attorney were made, when som