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

April 1, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L050 - Mon 1 Apr 1996 / Lun 1 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MARILYN BODOGH

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

ONTARIO STREET BAPTIST CHURCH

EDUCATION FINANCING

CONGRATULATORY MESSAGES

CHRISTINE ICHIM

GOVERNMENT POLICY

DRYDEN BOARD OF EDUCATION

SOHEIL MOSUN LTD

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

SALARY DISCLOSURE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

FAMILY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

SALARY DISCLOSURE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

FAMILY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

EDUCATION FINANCING

TAX REDUCTION

STUDENT HEALTH

INTERVENOR FUNDING

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

BUS TRANSPORTATION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ST MARY'S FAMILY LEARNING CENTRE

RENT REGULATION

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

RENT REGULATION

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

BUS TRANSPORTATION

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

TRANSITION HOUSE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MARILYN BODOGH

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): All of St Catharines, Ontario and Canada are hailing the victory of Marilyn Bodogh and her successful rink at the world curling championships at Copps Coliseum in Hamilton this past weekend.

When Marilyn and teammates Kim Gellard, Corie Beveridge and Jane Hooper Perroud took the provincial crown, the people of St Catharines, Toronto and Brampton were extremely happy and proud. When the Bodogh rink was the Canadian champion in Fort William, people from across Ontario were delighted. When the world women's final finished with the Bodogh rink claiming victory for Canada, the whole nation was ecstatic.

The St Catharines Curling Club on Grantham Avenue in St Catharines has its very own world champion in the person of Marilyn Bodogh who, 10 years after her world championship victory in 1986, has returned with new teammates to bring glory and positive attention to a community which has experienced its share of hard knocks over the past few years.

Perhaps the St Catharines Standard said it best in its editorial today, "Bodogh's second world title is a tribute to persistence and hard work in a sport which offers little in monetary reward and drew limited public attention until Bodogh, sister Christine Jurgenson and teammates Jan Augustyn and Kathy McEdwards shook up the staid Canadian women's curling world 10 years ago with their exuberance."

Congratulations to Marilyn and her new rink.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Last week I commented on the rush to the right that seems to be taking hold more and more within the Conservative caucus, and today we see another sign of that, as the Toronto Sun reports, "Young Tories Start Shift to Reform." I think the Conservatives are discovering that they are acting, at least here in Ontario, more and more like Reform and the only thing that's left for them is to change their name.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Reform-a-Tory.

Mr Silipo: That's right, to change their name. But this great move towards the right, this lean and mean attitude we are seeing, is not limited to what Mike Harris is doing here in Ontario, because today marks also the beginning of something called the Canada health and social transfer. And what do we see there? We see the Liberal government carrying on a great tradition started by the previous Mulroney regime, of cutting transfers to the provinces and saying they're balancing their budget simply by slashing funding for education, for social services, for health care. That, it seems, is becoming more the direction.

We saw it again the other day when the Minister of Education and Training announced in this House the absurd position of now asking property taxpayers in Ottawa and Toronto today, and maybe in Hamilton next year, to take money and send it back to him so he can pay for the 30% tax cut he wants to give to his rich friends. That is the future of --

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

ONTARIO STREET BAPTIST CHURCH

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I rise today to congratulate the members of Ontario Street Baptist Church in Stratford. During this time of fiscal restraint, the members of this fine Stratford congregation have rallied together to provide a lift, similar to an elevator, for handicapped members of the church who found climbing the stairs difficult, if not prohibitive.

The lift was originally estimated to cost in the range of $75,000, but thanks to various members of the congregation who donated a total of approximately 800 hours of labour, the cost was kept down significantly to a total of $55,000.

This is an excellent example of how the people of Perth work together to provide within their communities. All the money was raised in just under two years, through donations and the church's annual rummage sales. No government money was used. As a matter of fact, the congregation even turned down an available provincial grant, preferring to raise the money itself.

Once again I stand in the House to applaud yet another example of how the people of the great riding of Perth are working together to improve Ontario.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise to speak on the impact of the education cuts on school boards in Hamilton and Hamilton-Wentworth.

We all remember the promise made in the Common Sense Revolution by Mike Harris that "Classroom funding will be guaranteed." The PC response to an ARCH TYPE magazine questionnaire in 1995 was, "We have stated that any funding cuts to education will not come from the classroom." That is clearly another broken promise, another betrayal.

The Harris government's cuts will jeopardize Hamilton schools and the quality of education in Hamilton schools. It's going to jeopardize our children's future and represents clearly another broken promise. Mike Harris is stealing our children's future to fund a tax cut for the rich across Ontario.

The Premier was clear when he promised that classroom funding would be guaranteed. Well, he can tell that to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, who saw a cut of $25.4 million in our educational system, a layoff of well over 1,000 employees and over 500 teachers in Hamilton-Wentworth. This includes, in the Hamilton board alone, 228 elementary teachers and 209 secondary teachers. This is not supposed to impact on the classroom?

This has all been done to finance a tax cut for their wealthy friends. This government is willing to sacrifice our children's education, to sacrifice the future of education in Ontario to give their rich friends across this province a tax break. I hope they're ashamed of themselves. They're going to pay the price for this in four years.

CONGRATULATORY MESSAGES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Two statements, and I trust Hansard's going to document them appropriately.

First, congratulations to the women and men of OPSEU, who won, who won handily. When they win, the people of Ontario win. Thanks and gratitude to them.

Second in the same statement, congratulations to the Loblaws Five, all members of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty who tried to utilize the advice of the Minister of Community and Social Services to haggle with their greengrocer. And what happened? They got busted and thrown into the slammer. Their charges were stayed today. Justice prevailed.

I was honoured yesterday to meet with the Slovak Minister of Environment, Jozef Zlocha. Jozef Zlocha was travelling throughout Canada, along with a contingent of leading members of the Slovak Republic and leading business people, investigating environmental alternatives and indeed prepared to share them with us. Branislav Galat, who is the president of the Canadian Slovak League, Branch 23, arranged for them to be hosted in Welland. I was proud to attend and speak with Mr Zlocha and his associates about some very common issues.

It's time, though, to point out that eastern Europe is eager to initiate trade with Ontario. I submit to you that this government would be well directed if they were to consider Bratislava, for instance, as a location for an Ontario trade location so that we could initiate this important and productive process.

CHRISTINE ICHIM

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'd like to draw your attention to the gallery, to a young lady by the name of Christine Ichim. It is with great pride that I stand here to acknowledge a courageous young lady from Kitchener. She is 18 years old, but with a maturity well beyond her years. She has decided to spend her summer in-line skating across Canada to raise $5 million for leukaemia research.

Christine's mother has been battling leukaemia for eight years, and Christine, along with her brother Thomas, has been very active in dealing with the situation head on. Their concern for their mother was the motivation behind a gold medal performance at a 1994 Canada-wide science fair. Now their attention has been focused on a 104-day in-line skate across the country.

Christine, like Terry Fox and Rick Hansen before her, is driven by a certain vision and possesses the determination to realize that vision. These are precisely the qualities that make her a role model for others and this is why she deserves our support.

I know I join all members of the Legislature in wishing Christine the best of luck this summer and hope that her dream becomes a reality, both for her mother and for all those afflicted by this illness.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today is the day Conservatives celebrate. Today's is April Fool's Day, and fooling people is something the Conservatives do very well. They fooled people during the election when they said it was possible to cut $5 billion, balance the budget and not touch one penny from health care, classroom education or law enforcement, and they are still trying to fool people today.

Let's take the finance minister, for example. He thinks he can fool people into believing his $5-billion tax cut has nothing to do with the daily flood of pink slips being issued across this province. Let me tell you something, Mr Speaker: When the finance minister said, "We are not laying off thousands of people to pay for a tax cut," he didn't fool anybody.

He didn't fool the 200 people losing their jobs at the Peel Memorial Hospital; he didn't fool the 559 people, mostly teachers, losing their jobs at the Lincoln and Niagara South school boards; he didn't fool the 418 people, again mostly teachers, receiving layoff notices from the York Region Catholic school board; and he certainly didn't fool the up to 27,000 public servants whom the Conservatives are planning to lay off.

Unfortunately, the pain and hardship caused by this government is not practical, it is no joke and it begs the question, who are the real fools in all this?

DRYDEN BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The Dryden Board of Education is one of the revenue-poor boards of education in the province. This past week it received news that the Harris Conservative government was cutting its budget by $1.25 million in 1996, with further reductions in 1997. The Harris Conservative government says, "These cuts won't affect students and won't affect classrooms."

But let's look at what is being cut: the full budget allocation for elementary and secondary sports activities; the budget allocation for the cultural events that enrich daily student life; cutting the budget for grades 7 and 8 technology and design programs; doing away with library technician programs, the very people who help children develop their interest in reading and create a reading environment in our schools.

What does this say about this government? It says very plainly: This government doesn't understand that programs like cultural activities, like the reading program, like the technology program, like sports and athletic events make schools alive. They make schools interesting places for children; they make the school something that a child looks forward to every day and wants to attend. They broaden the school experience so that all children find something in school and all children are able to achieve. What is happening is that those very programs that make schools interesting for children are disappearing from our schools, and our children will indeed be affected.

SOHEIL MOSUN LTD

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Last week I had the pleasure of visiting an Etobicoke-based business that is an excellent example of a company thriving in the current economy. The proprietor is Soheil Mosun and his company, Soheil Mosun Ltd, manufactures bronze and steel architectural products for commercial buildings around the world. I was given a tour of their impressive facility.

The company's finely crafted work has been in shrines and office towers around the world, but they also have the honour of supplying the Genie, Gemini and MuchMusic video awards to outstanding Canadian artists. In addition, the company has made a significant contribution to the wellbeing of another national icon. Soheil Mosun Ltd is producing bronze frames that will be located on the observation deck of the Peace Tower in Ottawa, which is currently being renovated.

Not surprisingly, the company recognizes that the opportunities are not limited to our nation's geography. Soheil Mosun himself recently accompanied the Premier on a Team Canada trip to Asia, where the company signed a joint agreement to share its expertise in Malaysia. People in the Far East now will have the pleasure of witnessing the products for which Soheil Mosun Ltd has become respected.

I am pleased to speak of Soheil Mosun Ltd and the successes it has achieved. I am confident there will be other similar success stories as this government continues to get Ontario back into shape.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to inform the members of the Legislature of another step taken by this government to protect Ontario's welfare system for those most in need. I would like to announce to the House a joint initiative with the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lucienne Robillard. This initiative will reform Canada's family sponsorship program.

As members of this House will know, under Canada's family class immigration program, residents are able to sponsor family members who wish to immigrate to Canada. Individuals who agree to sponsor family members are financially responsible for them. When a sponsorship breaks down, family members are forced to rely on the province's welfare system. An estimated 30,000 sponsored immigrants are relying on social assistance in Ontario today.

Working with the federal government, we have achieved an agreement on a regulation change that will result in sponsors being held more responsible and more accountable. It will also provide Ontario with another tool to protect the welfare system.

Our government believes sponsors must live up to their obligations. As a result of these changes, the federal government will be able to go to court and seek to recover welfare payments on behalf of the province. Some cases may not be appropriate for legal action, such as abusive relationships. People who really need our help will not be affected by these changes.

Our government is committed to protecting the welfare system for those who truly need it. This initiative is just one more example of our ongoing efforts to keep that commitment.

SALARY DISCLOSURE

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I rise today to table information made public for the first time under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. This marks a major step forward in improving the openness and accountability of the provincial government and the organizations it funds.

This government promised in the Common Sense Revolution plan that we would give taxpayers the information they are entitled to about compensation of the most senior people in the public sector.

The Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, also referred to as the sunshine law because of the light it casts on information that was previously shrouded in unnecessary secrecy, was one of our priorities as a new government. Under this legislation, public sector organizations and government ministries must, by March 31 of each year, disclose the names, positions and compensation paid to employees whose salary was $100,000 or more in the previous calendar year. By setting a threshold of $100,000 in salary for public disclosure, the legislation parallels similar requirements in the private sector.

This gives a much better picture of how an organization's priorities and performance, and the responsibilities of a position, stack up against compensation levels for senior people. It returns meaning to the word "public" in public sector salaries. Greater accountability in public sector salary disclosure is also in line with the recommendations of Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Organizations subject to the legislation include municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities, all ministries of the Ontario government, the Legislative Assembly, provincial crown corporations and agencies such as Ontario Hydro, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Workers' Compensation Board. It applies to any organization that receives transfer payments from the province of at least $1 million, or 10% of its gross revenues if that amount is $120,000 or more on an annualized basis.

Today, the information on compensation for the 1995 calendar year is being made available. In the spirit of openness and accountability that underlies the legislation, this information is being made available today to the Legislature and to the public. The data being released today include information on the health, municipal and educational sectors, as well as all government ministries and agencies.

Members will note that the document released today does not include the salaries of any MPPs or ministers, even though members of the assembly are subject to the legislation. This is because in 1995 no member of the House received a salary of $100,000 or more.

The reason for this is that the numbers reported today are taken from T4 records prepared for Revenue Canada and do not include the hidden tax-free allowances that members receive. Taking into account the tax-free allowances, the pension plan and other benefits, the Premier's total compensation is estimated to be the equivalent of $166,443, according to the Brown commission, which recently prepared a report on MPP compensation entitled Setting the Benchmark. On the same basis, the compensation of a minister of the crown was estimated to be the equivalent of $132,341, and a member's was the equivalent of $93,389.

Members are aware that last week the Legislature passed a bill that freezes members' indemnities and allowances at levels in place on March 31 of this year, the same levels they have been at since 1993. This bill prevented reinstatement of the 5.5% by which allowances and indemnities had been reduced because of the social contract, which expires today.

Individuals in all segments of society are doing their part to address the province's fiscal situation. We believe members have a responsibility as well. To that end, we are committed to ending the gold-plated pension plan and tax-free allowances for members, and that is exactly what we will be doing in the very near future.

We have made a commitment to the people of Ontario to take a more open and accountable approach to government, and this is just another step in the process of being more responsible to all Ontarians.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I am pleased to be able to report to the House that the public service strike is over and that the government was able to end the strike through the free collective bargaining process.

Yesterday, both the union and the government ratified a new collective agreement, the first ever negotiated in a right-to-strike environment in the Ontario public service. The agreement is fair and reasonable to both the members of OPSEU and the taxpayers of Ontario, who have to pay the bills.

We expect a speedy reintegration of employees into the workplace, both those who exercised their right to come to work and those who exercised their right to strike. However, I will re-emphasize that this government will not tolerate under any circumstances harassment or intimidation of employees who exercised their right to come to work.

When the strike started more than one month ago, the government had a fair and reasonable offer on the table which would have cost between $150 million to $200 million to implement, while the union was demanding a contract which would have cost the taxpayers of Ontario more than $1.5 billion. I'm happy to report that the government was able to keep the cost of the final agreement well within the $150-million to $200-million range, making the taxpayers of Ontario the big winners today.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Welland-Thorold is out of order.

Hon David Johnson: Moreover, the contract we negotiated provides the government with the wage stability and the management flexibility it needs to implement its restructuring agenda in a cost-effective and timely manner.

Some of the key features of the package include:

There will be no increase in base wage rates for the term of the contract through to December 31, 1998.

There is no cost-of-living clause.

The job offer guarantee has been eliminated.

More restricted bumping rights are in force. Before there were unlimited bumping right provisions; now there are only three bumps allowed. Previously the bump could be exercised at the end of the notice period; now it will have to be exercised in the first two weeks of the notice period.

Notice periods have been reduced from up to 11 months to a standard of six months.

Also, despite speculation to the contrary, the contract does not include a successor rights provision. Rather, it commits the employer to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the employee follows the job in the case where work done by the public sector is taken over by a new employer.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate members of the government's negotiating team, in particular Mr Angelo Pesce, Mr Kevin Wilson and Mr Doug Gray, who did a superb job and achieved a very positive result for both the employer and the people of this province.

Also, I must, on behalf of the government, thank the public service managers, the thousands of people who exercised their right to work and the members of the other OPS unions for their dedication and efforts during the past five weeks. While it was not business as usual, they were able to keep the province running and working.

Now that the strike is behind us, the government will move quickly to implement its commitment to restructure the public service and to deliver better services at lower costs. It is my hope and belief that all our employees will participate in that effort and that all employees will, as they have in the past, place first priority on serving the people of Ontario.

FAMILY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I guess what the minister announced today is the reannouncement of a November 11 announcement regarding the crackdown on immigration fraud and to crack down on people who don't live up to those commitments. What the minister hasn't spoken about today of course, though, has been the total mismanagement of the welfare system during the strike by this government, a strike that was forced by the government, a strike that the government brought on the people of Ontario and, being ill prepared for it, caused total chaos in the social services system.

This government allowed thousands of cheques to go out to people who should not have received them. This government allowed thousands of cheques to go out to people who were being investigated for fraud. This government allowed cheques to go out to people who were in jail during the strike, because of its mismanagement. This government allowed deadbeat dads to get away with payments during the strike. This government allowed STEP, the supports to employment program, to fall into total chaos during the strike so people who were working often received gross underpayments or, in some cases where people had stopped working, gross overpayments by this government.

These were the initiatives that this government was not prepared to undertake and these were the glaring weaknesses in a government that forced a strike upon the people of Ontario and then ensured that people on welfare who should not have received cheques continued to receive them despite all its talk about welfare fraud. This is the government that has not moved on mandatory direct deposits, as we urged them to, has not allowed government access to income tax information and some of the real initiatives that will help crack down on welfare.

What I say to the minister and to this government is, if you want to take care of welfare problems in Ontario, do what you promised to do: Create the jobs so these people can get off welfare and get into the workforce.

SALARY DISCLOSURE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): We in the Liberal caucus welcome the Minister of Finance's tabling of the salary information. It is a useful process for the province. It's fair to say that in every case there is a public body that has set these salaries. I think the public will find it helpful to know the salaries and, where they may have some problems with it, to discuss that with the public body. So we certainly find that a useful process.

I wanted to say, though, that I find it a bit of a double standard when the government talks about a sunshine law, it talks about making the finances of this province more open and accountable, and this is the same government that, the public should be aware, refused to table a budget -- the first time in the history of the province of Ontario we have not had a budget tabled in this Legislature. It is the same government that has given private, confidential information to credit rating agencies and refused to give that information publicly.

It is the same government that, in what we call pre-budget hearings, refused to give us information that had been provided to every single pre-budget hearing for the last 15 years. So I find that we have a double standard here. You want a sunshine law, you want more open and accountable finances, and we have never run into a government more secretive, more closed about the legitimate information the public deserves.

I think it's time you looked in the mirror and passed a sunshine law that required you to provide the necessary data for the public of Ontario to understand where you are in the finances of the province.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): We are all glad, of course, to see that the government was able to end the strike through the free collective bargaining process, but let's be very clear: This government intentionally prolonged the strike for its own political ends. That is very clear to the people of this province. Let's also be clear, I might add, that this government failed in its objectives to break the union -- miserably failed. As well, this strike demonstrated the absolute futility of your ideologically driven feeding frenzy to try and divide and conquer the people of this province.

The people of this province will not be divided; they will not be conquered by your efforts at doing so. It's very clear that the people of this province have a great deal more to say to this government about its efforts to divide, its efforts to pit one group against another. They will not allow for that.

It is very clear to the people of this province as well that this government's every effort to continue to practise those kinds of politics will be proved to be futile in the future. Time and again the people have spoken very clearly. This government has to get on with its economic agenda to make it meaningful, to create jobs, to bring people together in this province, not to pit them one against the other, to divide and conquer. It is very clear the people reject that.

FAMILY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Obviously, our caucus supports the agreement that has been achieved between the province and the federal government with respect to sponsorships. This is something that was well under way in the negotiations when the current government took office. But rather than talking about the whole concept of fraud, I would like to ask the minister when he is going to get around to doing something in a positive way about the social assistance system in this province.

The only thing this government has done to date is to attack the poorest people in this province. Whether it's the rate cuts that were announced shortly after this government took office, whether it's the so-called eligibility restrictions that the government has put in place, whether it's the attacks on the disabled -- and we'll hear more about that soon from this government -- whether it's the Ontario drug benefit copayments and the attack on welfare recipients under that program, or whether it's the housing cuts, everything this government has done and everything this minister has done is to say that welfare recipients are lazy and that they should be attacked.

We know that's not true. We know that the majority of people on social assistance in this province are children. They need the assistance of this government. Any money that is spent is an investment in the future. Our caucus continues to believe that this government is shameful in the way it's attacking the poorest citizens and the poorest children in this province.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In response to the statement by the Chair of Management Board, I'd like to say a couple of things: Number one, I'd like to offer my congratulations to OPSEU; number two, I'd warn the general public out there not to get too complacent. The onslaught has just begun.

Leah and all the members of OPSEU, you did good. You got in the ring with Captain America and you went the distance. You went toe to toe with the bully and you scored a victory for all of us, particularly for the labour movement. This was not Ronald Reagan and the air traffic controllers. You won. You were solid, you were focused and you won, and it was a win for all those men and women out there who will be empowered by your show of resolve and the gains you made.

Many thought you couldn't do it, you wouldn't last, but you did. And so the poor and women and children and the disabled and health care workers and social workers, citizens across this province, today feel more empowered, feel less overwhelmed and despairing than they did, and we thank you for that.

It is important to note, however, that this is just the beginning. The onslaught on jobs and services continues, and we must be vigilant. We must continue to challenge and to resist.

I remind the government of the 20,000 people who showed up in London on the coldest day of the winter, the 50,000 who gathered at Queen's Park in January and the up to 120,000 who gathered in Hamilton. The snowball is rolling. We do not agree with your slashing jobs and services to give the rich a tax break.

Who will ever forget the images of the 1996 OPSEU strike? Secretaries, social workers, snowplow operators, forestry technicians surrounding government buildings; our friends and neighbours gathered around bonfires in barrels singing and huddling in their parkas to keep warm; and the storm troopers, the bloody confrontations and the steely resolve, and all for the sake of justice and fairness. Just by being there, OPSEU, by going the distance, by continually acting in good faith you set an example, you gained for yourself and you gave all of us a new respect for compassion and caring.

It's okay, you said, to care about people and to put people first, and you won for us the right to do that too.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for London North is out of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Solicitor General, my first question is for the Deputy Premier. Minister, there were some very disturbing revelations made in the news media this weekend about the police handling of the situation at Ipperwash Provincial Park last September 6, which as we all know sadly resulted in a man's death.

The chief superintendent of the OPP now acknowledges that the police made a conscious decision to use massive force to confront an unarmed group of people at Ipperwash, and this force included the use of snipers and the OPP riot squad.

This is disturbing in part because this new information appears to contradict statements that were put out both by the OPP and by the government at the time of the shooting occurrence. The Premier's press secretary has said that there were ongoing meetings among government officials here at Queen's Park to discuss the situation at Ipperwash prior to this massive use of force.

I ask you, Deputy Premier, if you can tell us who in the government was participating in those meetings, who in the government was then aware of the decision, the deliberate decision, to use massive force at Ipperwash, and did your government concur with that decision?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I have absolutely no knowledge of these events, and I would refer this question, in the absence of the Solicitor General, to the Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I would like to advise this House that the issue that the Leader of the Opposition brings up today is an issue that is presently being investigated by the special investigations unit. As well, I would like to advise the Leader of the Opposition that there is a civil action pending, and as well, there have been criminal charges that have been laid as a result of this. So any comment would be inappropriate at this time.

I also point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I believe it's Chief Superintendent Coles, who was in charge of the southwest region of the Ontario Provincial Police, indicates quite simply this was a police matter, not a political matter, and there was no political interference.

Mrs McLeod: With all due respect to the Attorney General, first of all, you raise an issue I am not raising today. I believe my issue is a separate issue and I believe it deserves a direct response from you. I'm well aware that the special investigations unit is investigating the circumstances surrounding the death and will render an opinion in that regard fairly shortly.

The issue I'm raising is the issue of a deliberate decision to use force to confront the people who were occupying Ipperwash Provincial Park. I'm also aware of what was said, that it was a police action, not a political action. My question related to the fact that there were meetings being held, that it was a tense situation, that the Premier was being questioned daily. We are given to believe he was being advised, on a regular basis, of actions being taken. It seems reasonable to suppose he was advised of this decision to take action and therefore would have been in a position to either concur or not concur, or to ask his Solicitor General to investigate it.

I think they are legitimate questions, Minister. I can tell you that I believe they are also legitimate in the context of the decisions that were made by your government in response to our concerns with the use of this particular unit in dealing with the picketers outside the Legislature. I am truly concerned about what appears to be a pattern in the use of this particular OPP unit, first at Ipperwash and then at the Legislature, when in both cases there appears to have been a decision to use force out of all proportion to the situation.

So I ask you, Minister, to deal with the issue I raise today, which is not the investigation being carried out by the special investigations unit, but given the new information from the chief superintendent of the OPP, the deliberate decision to use force in a confrontation, would you not agree that the actions of the police at Ipperwash should be examined as part of the public inquiry into the OPP's conduct on March 19?

Hon Mr Harnick: I can only say that any political interference in the operations of the OPP would be highly inappropriate. There was no political interference. The police made decisions as a police force and acted in accordance with the decisions they made, and that is very clear.

Mrs McLeod: I say again, my question was about awareness on the part of the Premier and members of the government. While the Attorney General may wish to dismiss this as a question about political interference, I have to remind him that the Solicitor General is responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police. You simply cannot avoid that reality. That means the Solicitor General and the Premier are undoubtedly privy to information and could be in a position of concurring with this decision or questioning it before it occurred.

I also want to remind you, Minister, that we have the OPP this weekend acknowledging that it fully intended to use force to confront, and that's the word that was used, "confront," an unarmed group of people at Ipperwash. As a result of a confrontation then that was deliberately sought, we've seen the outcome, unfortunately, of someone being killed.

I do understand that's being investigated by the special investigations unit, but Minister, we are in agreement that there will be a public inquiry to look at the use of the OPP squad, what we believe to be excessive force, on March 19. I believe the decision to use this unit in Ipperwash, questions about the way in which they're deployed, the way in which this unit is trained, the instructions they're given to deal with these very sensitive situations, are a legitimate part of the public inquiry, whether it is dealing with Ipperwash or March 19.

I have to ask you why the government is willing to look at the actions of the OPP riot squad here in Toronto but appears to be unwilling to look at the actions of that same squad in the Ipperwash situation.

Hon Mr Harnick: I think the situations are very different. Again I reiterate that we already have criminal charges laid surrounding the Ipperwash situation. We also have an investigation ongoing by the special investigations unit. Finally, we have a civil action for which we have received notice, and that in and of itself distinguishes the situation as between Ipperwash and the other issue to which the Leader of the Opposition refers.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I will place a new question, although sadly, I believe this is an issue the government will not be able to avoid so easily.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will place my second question to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. This year, once again, we are seeing young people in this province facing staggering levels of unemployment. In fact, most people would agree that close to 30% of our young people are unemployed and that unemployment -- and this is alarming, Minister -- among our college and university graduates may be higher than it has ever been.

We know that those same university and college students are starting to write final exams. They're already in the full swing of searching for jobs. They're hoping to find a summer job or to find their first job and yet we've had absolutely no announcement from your government as to any kind of jobs programs to help them.

I ask you today, Minister, do you have any plans to introduce a program that will help young people? Will you provide any hope that your government is prepared to help them even a little?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): To the Leader of the Opposition, I'd like to correct one statement that you made. The youth unemployment figure in Ontario is not 30%, as you said; it is 16%. I know that's high, but it's wrong and I think you should check your figures.

Also, our government is concerned about employment for young people and I'm very happy, as we have mentioned in the last week or so, that the statistics of employment in February were 31,000 new jobs created, which are the most jobs created in the month of February since 1981. This carries over to jobs for young people as well. As far as I'm concerned, our policies will benefit our young people, and I'm sure that if the Leader of the Opposition would look and consider, she'd feel the same.

Mrs McLeod: Since the minister sees fit to correct my statements, let me correct the minister's statements. First of all, those are not employment statistics you just offered to this House, Minister; those were jobs numbers. The employment statistics will show you that there were 7,000 more people not working last month. That means the unemployment levels were slightly higher, Minister, not slightly lower, and higher by some 7,000 additional people.

That's why your statistics about the 16% unemployment level for young people are different from the real unemployment level for young people, because the real unemployment level, people will agree, is closer to 30%. Because young people don't expect to find a job, they're not out there looking for jobs. The 16% is only those people who are out there day after day trying to find employment and not finding employment, and that's why we're concerned and that's why we will keep raising this question.

Last week, Minister, when my critic raised the question with you, you said that freezing the minimum wage was your answer for job creation programs for young people. Well, I have to suggest to you again, to correct your statement of last week, that that is not a jobs program. You suggested to us last week that people like the northern Ontario tourist outfitters welcomed the minimum wage freeze, and I'm sure they did. But they didn't give you any indication that they're going to create more jobs as a result of it.

In fact, our critic, since you made that statement, has asked many people whether or not the freeze on minimum wage is going to lead to new jobs being created. So far, nobody's been able to say it will.

So I ask you, Minister, has anyone told you that they're actually going to hire more young people as a result of your wage freeze? Do you have any evidence at all that your wage freeze is going to cause employers to hire more people this summer? If you have no evidence that it will, what other steps are you prepared to take to make sure there is some opportunity, some help for young people facing record levels of unemployment?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Again to the Leader of the Opposition, I'd like to tell her that I have been told that the freezing of the minimum wage is very helpful to the small business people whom you referred to.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We're talking about youth employment.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Hon Mr Saunderson: However, if I can proceed here, I would like to let you know that the ventures program is being reviewed, as part of government reviews being made for all programs, and I'm sure that we will be able to make an announcement in the near future that will be very helpful to students.

Mrs McLeod: If we can move the minister away from his wishful thinking that freezing the minimum wage is magically going to lead to jobs, he does begin to get at the nub of the question, which is rumours that we hear about this review of the government's job programs for students. Obviously, we're all anxious about where that review is going to lead. There are rumours that you might even be thinking about cutting the program in order to find, once again, dollars for your tax cut.

Minister, we've heard you say and we've heard your Premier say that you do not believe in government directly creating jobs or funding jobs. But surely you believe that young people who are facing record unemployment levels deserve some assistance in trying to get a summer job so they can go back to school or a first job so they can get some experience in the workplace.

University and college students are going to be graduating in a matter of weeks. They are going to be in the job force. They're going to be adding to those unemployment numbers that you see. We need to know how long they will have to wait before you announce what you're prepared to do to help. Tell us what the status is of your programs. When will you announce what you're going to do, or are you simply going to stand by and let the months go on and the unemployment numbers increase while you try to decide whether you're prepared to help at all?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm very happy to respond again to the Leader of the Opposition. We have not been standing by over these last few months; we have been making a number of changes in this province. We have changed the labour legislation. We have frozen hydro rates. We are reducing the workers' compensation rates.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): What are you doing about jobs?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Saunderson: We are trying, and are succeeding, in creating a climate that says Ontario is open for business, and that will create jobs for all levels of people.

I also might say that the personal tax rate cut will be a big boost for the students. I understand that you must have a hard time understanding this, because you did not appreciate this during the campaign.

Mr Colle: Oh, that's going to help the kids.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood is out of order.

Hon Mr Saunderson: We were elected on a program which I have just outlined, in part, to you. Now, you just sit back and watch how it works.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I guess the students who are finishing classes now and will be out of school in a couple of weeks can sit back and watch while this government figures it out. They won't have any work this summer though, unfortunately.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to return to the minister responsible for native affairs, as it relates to the Ipperwash matter. I recognize that the minister has said that he cannot or will not respond in relation to issues that are perhaps under investigation by the SIU, so I would ask about a matter that does not relate to that but is of significant importance.

As the minister knows, we're into spring. The camping season will begin very soon. This is not a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, I believe; it is for the minister responsible for native affairs. He will remember that in the closing time of that confrontation at Ipperwash Provincial Park, the federal minister responsible for Indian affairs provided evidence dated 1937 from the then assistant deputy minister of lands and forests indicating that the issue around burial grounds at Ipperwash Provincial Park would be dealt with according to the wishes of the Indians.

Have the minister and his staff investigated that evidence? If so, what conclusions has he come to with regard to the assertion by the aboriginal people that there is indeed a burial ground at the park? What is he prepared to do to try to resolve this matter so it does not become a confrontation again this spring?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): There has been no formal claim made by anyone pertaining to the issue of some portion of the Ipperwash park containing a burial ground. We have been very clear that if that is the case, we would do whatever we have to do to ensure that this particular area is respected. That has been made clear.

The other thing I say to the interim leader of the third party is that the property that makes up the Ipperwash Provincial Park was conveyed to the province of Ontario after it had been owned by the federal government. The federal government conveyed that property first to an individual, I believe, and then from that individual to the province of Ontario, and they conveyed that property on the basis of good title being conveyed. As I indicate to the interim leader, if there is a burial ground there, the province is prepared to do everything necessary to respect that burial ground.

Mr Wildman: From the minister's comments, it appears that in six months, since this confrontation took place and since the federal authorities provided the evidence from 1937, this minister hasn't done anything with regard to determining whether or not the matter is substantial, whether or not there is indeed a burial ground in the park. How can it be that in six months after this confrontation, you stand here in this House saying there has been no formal claim? This is an issue that has been ongoing since the 1930s and certainly since the 1940s. There have been issues raised with the provincial authorities going back to at least the 1970s.

Do you agree there is evidence that there is a burial ground in the park or not? If you do agree, then what are you prepared to do to protect that ground and avoid another confrontation this spring?

Hon Mr Harnick: I say to the interim leader that if this was going on through the 1930s and 1940s and 1970s, he had ample opportunity at a time when the park wasn't occupied to make a determination and to find out exactly what the status of that property is. Unfortunately, it demands an onsite inspection and investigation. We have not had an opportunity to do that, and the interim leader knows full well that you can't look in a book or on a map and make that determination. If that's the way he prefaces the question, it begs the answer of why he didn't do it when he was the minister for so many years.

Mr Wildman: The minister demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the events. The evidence wasn't provided to the provincial government until 1995, by the minister responsible at the federal level, after this confrontation, not before -- not before the change of government. It was when you were in government that the evidence, the letter dated August 19, 1937, from the Deputy Minister of Lands and Forests came to light. The demands were there. A claim on the side of the aboriginals was there, but there was not conforming evidence from the provincial government.

The Premier said in a press release dated September 12, 1995: "Our government is committed to restoring hope, economic opportunity and jobs for the first nations people of Ontario. The minister responsible for native affairs and his officials will continue to work with first nations to address these issues."

That was issued by the Premier at the time of the confrontation at Ipperwash. What have you done in the last six months to resolve this matter so that it is not going to become another confrontation this spring when the camping season starts?

Hon Mr Harnick: We certainly do not want this to become the focal point of another confrontation, but the member knows full well that the information he has does not indicate a location of the burial ground. He also knows full well that it involves an onsite investigation, which he knows full well has not been able to take place as a result of (

a) the occupation and (

b) the winter.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, we understand that you spent last Friday in a cabinet meeting getting approval for more cutbacks in your ministry, in this case more cutbacks to the most vulnerable people. The Minister of Finance promised last November in his economic statement that genuine need will be met with compassion and support.

Can you tell us, where is the compassion and support in taking from children the back-to-school and winter clothing allowances, in taking away between $174 and $233 a year from every school-aged child who is dependent on social assistance? Where is the compassion in that, Minister?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Obviously the member is speculating, and I'm not going to respond to a speculative question like that.

Mr Hampton: If it ain't so, the minister could always say no. Let me try again with the minister who claims to know nothing. We know you are planning to take $70 million away from disabled people by changing the definition of "disabled." Can you tell us how denying income support to these disabled people, to these people who have the most difficult circumstances in life -- can you tell us how taking $70 million away from disabled people means you're showing compassion and support?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Along with the speculation this member is doing, he's also indicating he has a few claims. I would suggest that the member who's asking the question is the one who probably doesn't have an idea of what he's speaking about in this particular case.

We have been working with the disabled community over the past several months and we have a commitment to work with the disabled community into the future. Clearly, we're trying to make the system better so we can work with the communities and provide them with the services they truly need. The difficulty we've had -- I know this House has heard this several times, but this is quite a mess we've inherited and we're still trying to clean this up.

The disabled community has indicated -- and not only the disabled community, because the member speculated about another area as well. For example, Mary McConville, the executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, has indicated in the past that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are probably better ways to spend your money and more effective ways to deliver your service. The prior government didn't pay attention to this and now we have the responsibility to make sure the system is better.

Mr Hampton: Unless I'm mistaken, the minister over there has been the Minister of Community and Social Services since late in June. It's about time he takes some responsibility instead of standing up and saying, "I don't know, and even if I do know, it's not my responsibility." Are you the Minister of Community and Social Services or not?

My final supplementary: We have heard that one of the other areas to be cut is help for developmentally handicapped people in Ontario, that you intend to cut $30 million from that budget. Are you simply going to write off developmentally delayed and handicapped children in this province? Is that your strategy? If you look at the numbers, cutting $30 million means there is virtually nothing left. What are you doing?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes, I am the Minister of Community and Social Services. It's taken you quite a long time to notice that, but thank you very much for that confirmation.

Clearly, the member didn't hear what I said prior to answering his specific question. We are working with the disabled community. I don't know what part of that he doesn't understand. We're trying to work with the caregivers of this province, the families affected. They're having an opportunity to deal with us and work with policy. This is something the prior government never did. They didn't offer the ability for people to come forward and have real input in terms of the policies affecting the disabled community. We're doing this. We're consulting with them and we're working with them.

I don't know how much those members don't understand about this process, because this is a government that's willing to consult with people.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question to the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Who's your question to, sir?

Mr Colle: The Minister of Education. Minister, how can you justify to the hard-pressed property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto, who get no provincial funding for education, the fact that you are now going to claw back from local property taxes that are intended for local schools and grab that money for the provincial treasury? Is this not just plain taxation without representation? Is this not just a plain new surtax on the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto to pay for your tax cut for the wealthy?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): In response to your question, no. As you know, we intend to table legislation that will allow school boards that are in a negative grant position to participate in the fairness and equity of financing the education of young people across this province, because this government believes that every board in this province should participate actively in reducing the money that is spent outside of the classroom in our education system across the province. That is the requirement that this government will have and will do so with negotiations with all school boards across the province.

Mr Colle: I guess this is like a deal that you can't refuse. You know, do you have much choice?

Isn't it bad enough that the property tax base in Metro is haemorrhaging -- in fact last year it haemorrhaged by $110 million as a result of assessment appeals -- and now you introduce this new surtax that could be up to $60 million on the people of Metro Toronto? How is this going to help the quality of education in our classrooms in Metro? What is it going to do about the hard-pressed property taxpayers in Metropolitan Toronto? Mr Minister, doesn't this just plain and simple amount to a shakedown of the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto to pay for your tax cut for the rich of this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I will agree with the honourable member on one point, and that point is that the current system we have for funding education in the province of Ontario results in inequities in the amount of money that is spent and is available for students in different boards across the province. I think that's regrettable, and this government intends to do something about it. It's unfortunate that the previous government and the government before it chose not to address this situation.

TAX REDUCTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the finance minister. Minister, rumours are beginning to fly and we're getting more and more details daily about your plans to drastically slash public sector jobs. We're concerned, of course, that most of them are going to be the front-line, moderately paid jobs, not the $100,000-plus jobs that you announced earlier today.

But what's most upsetting and alarming about the impending slash of jobs and services is that it wouldn't be necessary if this government wasn't intent on proceeding with its tax cut that will put most of the money into the pockets of the richest people of Ontario. Minister, there is still time to see reason. The budget is more than a month away. Why not give up the tax cut and try and preserve jobs and services in this province?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): As I have indicated to the honourable member and others in this chamber before, to date every measure that this government has taken is to reduce the severe overspending that this government inherited last June. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else to date, and the honourable member will have to wait and see what happens in the budget this year before she can comment on that.

Ms Lankin: Slashing services in order to pay for the tax cut never made sense from the beginning, but we know that the Premier promised to resign if he didn't live up to that commitment that he had made.

Now we have the spectacle of the Premier, and I'm amazed, today joined by the finance minister, trying to convince us that the tax cut's not going to cost us a penny, somehow it's going to finance itself. Yet we know this government has plans to drastically cut public sector jobs. You won't tell us how many; you won't tell us if it's 13,000 or 17,000 or 20,000. You refused to tell the finance and economics committee what the cost of your tax cut will be or what kind of stimulus to the economy it will or won't produce.

Minister, isn't it time to provide that information to the people of Ontario and let them tell you whether they think the price they're going to have to pay for that tax cut in order to save your Premier's job is worth it or not?

Hon Mr Eves: I think the Premier's job is relatively secure.

This government is committed to restructuring the way the province of Ontario does business, to spending more wisely the way the province of Ontario spends hard-earned taxpayers' money in the province of Ontario. The member is going to have to wait until individual ministry business plans are finalized before anybody can tell her exactly what restructuring is taking place in each ministry. If she will be a little more patient and if she waits until those business plans are finalized and she waits until the budget is introduced this spring, she will have the answer to many of her questions.

STUDENT HEALTH

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, one of the greatest tragedies we encounter in the education system is the sudden death of a young person. Such was the case for the residents of Scarborough when a student died of acute food reaction almost two years ago. What steps is the minister taking to increase awareness of and deal with anaphylaxis, the life-threatening allergic reaction to peanuts and other food products?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Scarborough Centre for the question. Anaphylaxis is certainly a serious problem for parents, for families and for schools, and most school boards across the province have developed policies to address this and other medical conditions. Recently, my ministry sent a memo and a consensus report from the Anaphylaxis Task Force to every school board across the province in the hope of supporting them in developing programs and developing policies to respond to this condition so that another child's life won't be lost.

Mr Newman: Parents have been calling for the introduction of EpiPens, a needle containing lifesaving shots of adrenalin, in the classroom and on school field trips. What solutions is he prepared to offer to ensure the threat to students is minimized and that if an anaphylactic attack does occur, the best medical help is available to that student?

Hon Mr Snobelen: In addition to the task force I mentioned a littler earlier, we have also consulted extensively on this subject with the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and also with the Allergy Asthma Information Association and asked them for their information. In fact, we have sent out some of the reports from these organizations to schools and to school boards across the province. There has been a variety of responses by school boards to these medical conditions and I think the best practices are those that are most successful, and those should be copied by other boards.

In fact, some boards permit and allow students to wear EpiPens on a cord around their necks, and train staff to properly apply those. That certainly is a very useful way of responding to the need.

INTERVENOR FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. People who care about the environment in our province will consider today to be a major step backward in our province; a major step backward for all who are concerned about the environment. Today you are abandoning one of the most valuable instruments that the citizens of this province have to protect our environment, to effectively scrutinize development proposals for garbage dumps and incinerators and nuclear generating stations. You are abandoning intervenor funding --

Laughter.

Mr Bradley: -- which the member for Etobicoke West obviously finds amusing, and I don't.

Why have you capitulated to the well-funded and influential waste management association and abandoned environmentally concerned citizens of this province?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the member opposite for the question. The Intervenor Funding Project Act was begun in 1988 as a pilot project. It was sustained for three years and then extended for another five years. The member opposite is quite right: This government has allowed that legislation to sunset. We very carefully thought about this program and whether or not we would allow it to continue or would allow it to sunset as the former government had intended. Our top concern when we reviewed this was a continuation of the effective public participation process.

From the experience gained under the intervenor funding process, we believe that the process in fact may have helped prolong a lengthy and costly dispute without adding significant environmental benefits to the process. The objective of this government is to maintain a solid public participation process and ensure access to decision-making.

Mr Bradley: By allowing the intervenor funding act to expire, the minister has removed an entire layer of protection, not just from the environment but also from public finances. The minister will know that almost all projects coming under the EA are public sector proposals. Funded intervenors have a track record of asking the kind of questions which will force proponents to doublecheck their assumptions and sometimes reach radically different conclusions.

Are the finances of Ontario Hydro and the treasury of Ontario, which guarantees Ontario Hydro's debt -- for instance, because Hydro abandoned its program for extensive construction after the intervenor funding was provided and after some hearings took place, are you prepared to now abandon that? Are you so flush in this province, for instance, that you can afford to trash this layer of environmental and financial protection? With a mind to saving money for her colleagues and the Minister of Finance, will the minister commit now to asking cabinet to reinstate intervenor funding and not returning Ontario to an era of bake-sale environmentalism?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I would remind my colleagues that this was a project originally intended to sunset, and we have allowed that. The decision that we have taken is consistent with our government's intention to return to efficiency and to streamline the process.

There are a number of avenues for participation in environmental decision-making. Cost awards are still eligible to participants.

Mr Bradley: After the fact.

Hon Mrs Elliott: Yes, that is true, after the fact. I would also like to say that voluntary upfront funding is encouraged, and we will continue to encourage that. In fact, it is to the proponents' benefit to make sure that they have involved decision-makers and interested parties at the outset of the environmental process. I would also like to indicate that there's no supporting evidence that the lack of upfront funding is a disincentive to participation. In fact, under the Ontario Municipal Board or the National Energy Board intervenor funding has never occurred.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy on the same subject. I have to tell you that I'm shocked by your response so far. I'm going to give you an opportunity to try to revise what you said, because you're totally wrong when you say the previous NDP government was going to sunset the Intervenor Funding Project Act. We had some independent studies done, all of which -- I assume you haven't seen them -- justify the need for intervenor funding. Our government would have, if not come through with the same act, put something in its place. So this is absolutely a real blow to the environmental movement.

You know that intervenor funding pays the expenses of citizen groups appearing at hearings before the Environmental Assessment Board. These hearings deal with megaprojects like dumps and incineration, highways and expressways, which can drastically pollute neighbourhoods and our environment at large. Your government claims that scrapping intervenor funding will streamline the process, but the fact is that this is just another attempt by this government to muzzle opposition and take away their democratic rights. That's what's going on here.

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

Ms Churley: We know that big government or garbage companies can afford all the lawyers they want to justify their needs, but citizens will not get a fair chance to stop polluting projects in their backyards. How can you justify -- and do not give the same answer that you gave to my colleague because it isn't correct -- curtailing citizen rights to a fair and balanced hearing in this province?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Again, I say that there is no evidence that lack of intervenor funding does deny participant response. The participant involvement and proposals going before the Ontario Municipal Board are high. Those who do go before under the Environmental Assessment Act or the Ontario Energy Act are still subject to cost awards.

Ms Churley: Cost awards after the fact didn't work in the past and won't work now. That's one of the major reasons why the Liberal government brought in intervenor funding and our government proceeded with intervenor funding. You are saying that people should hold bake sales now to hire lawyers and legal experts and scientific experts to assist them in hearings? That's ridiculous.

You are saying that you want big government to have more power and citizens to come forward as volunteers. Let me say to you that this government has not learned the lessons of Bill 26. People will not put up with that arrogance.

We know that the government has another agenda here. They want to clear the way for more privatization. I note that the Ontario Waste Management Association, the private garbage industry lobby, has praised the minister's decision.

Minister, I want to ask you to commit today: Will you at least make sure that when a private proponent wants to place a dump in someone's backyard, citizens' groups get funding from that company to present their case before the Environmental Assessment Board? I'm asking you, if you're scrapping this intervenor environmental funding, that you at least find something else to replace it.

Hon Mrs Elliott: During our review, our consideration was to ensure effective public participation, and our decision not to allow this to continue is part of our consistent commitment to efficient and decisive decision-making in this province.

Cost awards are still allowed under the Environmental Assessment Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act. We encourage proponent pre-hearing funding, and certainly proponents benefit from that in moving forward under the Environmental Assessment Act.

When we come forward with our changes to waste reform under the Environmental Assessment Act, we believe we will be able to help participants get their views known up front.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, recently you announced reforms to the occupational health and safety system in Ontario. At that time you said the reforms, which were made in response to the recommendations of the review panel on occupational health and safety, are an important step towards our goals of preventing workplace injuries and illness and creating a coordinated and cost-effective course to making Ontario workplaces among the safest in the world.

One of the needed reforms you mentioned in your statement was the identification of priorities and goals for health and safety, with a focus on prevention through improved performance evaluation measurement. Will you explain the importance of monitoring and measuring our progress with respect to the government's overall objective of making Ontario's workplaces among the safest in the world?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would like to indicate that it is our objective to prevent illness and injury in the workplace. It is our intention to create workplaces that are the safest in the world, and in order to do so, we need to do what the agency had never done. In fact, the Provincial Auditor indicated in his report that one of the greatest shortcomings of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency was the fact that they had never been able to demonstrate that they had been able to indicate there was a reduction in workplace injuries and illness.

We are determined to set standards. We are going to monitor, we are going to measure and we are going to evaluate in order to ensure that there is progressive reduction in the number of illnesses and injuries in the workplace. Only in this way can we focus on prevention and use our resources in the most effective way.

Mr Ouellette: My second question is with respect to the comments made in your announcement on March 21, 1996, to the member for Hamilton Centre, David Christopherson. The member's comments were about core certification training and what the training will include once reformed. The member seemed to suggest that the new training program would, among other things, exclude training with respect to musculoskeletal injury prevention and health and safety law.

Minister, will you clarify the confusion that exists and tell us what the core certification training will include?

Hon Mrs Witmer: In response to the question, I would like to indicate that our objective is to ensure that the training that we provide is going to be responsive to the needs of the individual workplaces and is going to be cost-effective and also allow the greatest number of people to participate.

There are actually two programs, and I think the member opposite probably was somewhat confused the other day. We have in place an interim program which presently is a four- and a seven-day program, and we are still including health and safety within that program.

We also are establishing new standards. Those standards are presently out for discussion. Stakeholders have an opportunity to provide us with input until the end of April. There is a basic certification standard being developed, and also there will be a workplace-hazard-specific standard that will be developed. Again, there will be the opportunity for the inclusion of health and safety, and also a discussion of musculoskeletal injury if the workplace parties, when they are doing their assessment of hazards in the workplace, determine that to be necessary for their particular workplace.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, I quote from Hansard on March 26, 1996, where you said: "This government is committed to ensuring municipalities have the freedom and flexibility to make decisions about their road system.... We are going to be phasing in numerous highways across this province.... But we will allow municipalities ample time to make the adjustments in order to meet their commitments."

Minister, in your comments to the Legislature on that day, I noted that you didn't use the words "reasonable" and "fair," yet in a February 5, 1996, letter to the municipalities you said, and I quote again, "This policy must be reasonable and fair to the affected municipalities." As it relates to the transfer of some 3,700 kilometres of roads -- provincial highways -- in this province to municipalities, would you, for this Legislature, define what you consider reasonable and fair?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I certainly would like the opportunity to answer the member. However, I would like to correct one thing, if I may: There are approximately 1,759 kilometres that will be transferred over the next three years in the province of Ontario. And yes, I would like to once again reiterate that this government will do the transition in an orderly way, and we are going to be reasonable in our negotiations.

Mr Crozier: Perhaps the minister has deducted all the Palladini potholes from the total kilometrage and that's how he came up with it, because I have a letter from the warden of the county of Essex that says, "The province originally identified 3,700 kilometres of potential highway transfers." Two hundred and fifty have already been transferred, and you're now considering an additional 1,765. I'm sure that he is concerned, as well as all the others, about what you're going to do with the other 1,685. Maybe you'd like to tell us today that you're not going to transfer them.

In any event, these highways are still important to the future of the province of Ontario for tourism and for economic growth and development. MTO guidelines from July 1995 say all transfers must be of good financial benefit and costsaving to the ministry and the municipalities to ensure good value for the taxpayers' money.

The Ontario Good Roads Association, in a resolution, urged the province of Ontario to withdraw the proposed downloading of their unwanted highways unless they, the province, are prepared to provide adequate funding to all the affected municipalities. As you know, Minister, some municipalities have already agreed with the ministry and have received adequate funding, 100% funding,

whereas now it's suggested at least that others may only receive 22%.

My question is this then: How are municipalities to address the needs of existing roads and bridges with reduced grants and then be handed even more additional financial responsibilities without compensation? Will block funding be increased accordingly to address the increased maintenance costs?

Hon Mr Palladini: The honourable member would like us to believe it's the Conservative Party or the Mike Harris government that's initiating highway transfers. This has been an ongoing process. In terms of economic development in the province, this government recognizes the importance of our highway infrastructure; that is one of the areas. Your government, when it was in power, should have put more money back in the infrastructure. However, we do have a commitment. We are going to be transferring highways that serve a municipal purpose so we can put more money back in our highway infrastructure, so we can develop economic development.

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. The thick pile of documents you tabled recently raise a couple of clear questions and discrepancies, and I'll come back to that at a later date. Today, I want to focus on the plight of the 30 cleaners who have lost their jobs and indeed what has happened to the 47 who have jobs.

Of the remaining 47 who have jobs -- again, 30 of them are now unemployed, thanks to your Bill 7 -- they have had their wages cut by 29%. Further, the new contractor has refused to honour the collective agreement, refused to honour the union of choice of these workers and refused to use seniority rights as a key determinant in who would stay and who would go.

When I raised these issues with you in the House before they happened, you said: "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."

Given that OPSEU, as a result of its victory in this recent strike, now has seniority rights strengthened and guaranteed and that you have promised to try to get new employers to match current salaries and benefits -- in fact, if OPSEU members are asked to take a job that has a 15% wage cut or more, they can refuse and qualify for enriched severance -- are you prepared today to stand in your place and honour your commitment to give those same rights to those workers as you've now given to OPSEU?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, we should acknowledge that successor rights are not in place today for the civil service. The contract that was negotiated with OPSEU does not contain a successor rights clause.

What we said we would do with OPSEU, what is in the contract, is that the government would make reasonable efforts to attempt that the jobs would go with the new employers. That's exactly what we've done in this case where the employees are not actually employees of the government. The cleaners are not employees of the government; they're employees of another contractor.

What has happened is that through the bidding process -- and I mentioned this in the House the other day -- the Ontario Realty Corp reviewed the bids of the five bidders, and one of the reasons the successful bidder was chosen is because the successful bidder agreed to take as many employees as possible who are currently employed by the other contractor.

That, I believe, is honouring the obligation of what I said we would do in this House in terms of attempting to ensure that the employees would go with the job. In fact, all the employees who have been hired have gone with the new contractor.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Minister, that just isn't good enough. That's not what you said. That's not the commitment you gave in this House. As my colleague said to you, and he quoted back the same words you used last week: "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." You knew all the facts at the time that you made that commitment, Minister. You're now retracting from that commitment.

You can talk about process all you want, but let me talk to you about the people we are dealing with here, because behind your process what you are doing is affecting real people, people with long service, people who have cleaned your offices and our offices for years and years. They're people like Fernanda Gomes, who for 16 years has been doing this work; Maria Fresens, who for 15 years has been doing this work; Maria Pereira, who for 17 years has been doing this work. They're but three of the 30 people who no longer have a job because of the actions you and your government have taken.

What do you say to these women, many of whom live in the riding that I have the privilege of representing, but also women in the rest of the city of Toronto, who are out of a job because of your actions? You are now also saying that you're not living up to the commitment to be fair. Why, Minister?

Hon David Johnson: Obviously, this is a difficult situation. This government reviewed carefully the situation. The compensation levels in terms of pay and benefits amounted to about $19 a person. We put the contract out for bid on behalf of the taxpayers. A contractor came in, recommending a reduction of almost $2.5 million over the course of two years to the taxpayer. The commitment I made through the contract to OPSEU was that we would make reasonable efforts to ensure that the employees would go with the contract. We did make reasonable efforts. In fact, we chose a bid that was not the lowest bid.

The reason we chose the bid which was not the lowest bid was primarily because the winning bidder chose to take the existing employees. If that isn't a reasonable effort, I don't know what is.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Transportation Minister Al Palladini is proposing legislation that will cost many towns their bus service.

"Bus companies are currently required to provide service for smaller towns as a condition of being given the rights to high-profit routes and charter markets. Minister Palladini's plan to deregulate will eliminate all conditions and requirements. As a result, hundreds of smaller communities like ours will lose bus service.

"Minister, people in smaller towns need bus service just as much as people in big cities. We depend upon buses to visit friends and family, to get to appointments in nearby towns, to ship our Christmas presents and to receive our repair parts. The undersigned call upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to oppose bus deregulation and the elimination of our bus service."

This is signed by over 60 people in London and area. I'm proud to affix my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

"Whereas the community living in the vicinity of Twenty Road and Highway 6, regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, consider this intersection as very hazardous and dangerous due to poor visibility and traffic volume,

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

"The undersigned petition the Ministry of Transportation to begin road improvements and install a stoplight at the intersection of Twenty Road and Highway 6 immediately to facilitate the safety of all motorists accessing these roads."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ST MARY'S FAMILY LEARNING CENTRE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): "Whereas St Mary's Family Learning Centre of Windsor Inc, being funded by the Ministry of Community and Social services, provides support and educational opportunities for parents, home child care providers and resources for licensed child care centres to approximately 500 adults and 2,000 children;

"Whereas St Mary's Family Learning Centre of Windsor Inc relies on donations, user fees and volunteerism as well as Ministry of Community and Social Services funding to provide current services; and

"Whereas only 3% of the total Ministry of Community and Social Services child care budget is spent on family resource programs such as St Mary's Family Learning Centre to support families who choose home child care as an option; and

"Whereas all families pay taxes that support child care but a vast majority of the current child care budget is spent on licensed child care spaces that are used by only 8.5% of children; and

"Whereas the other 91.5% of families have few publicly funded services available to them,

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislative Assembly to maintain funding to St Mary's Family Learning Centre."

I support this and affix my signature to it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition from a number of people throughout the Metro area and they petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"To Premier Michael Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach, and members of the provincial Legislature:

"Whereas to abolish rent control in favour of a market system would be disastrous for tenants and give further power and allow unnecessary profit for landlords,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to support universal and mandatory rent controls which reflect a fair balance between the ability of tenants to pay and the necessary costs of supplying well-maintained and secure housing."

I have signed the petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition which I'm presenting on behalf of the member for Simcoe East. It relates to child care. It's signed by some 26 people.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition 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 the seniors bearing the brunt of your proposed actions."

This is signed by constituents from the riding of Oriole, and I am pleased to affix my signature to their important petition.

RENT REGULATION

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

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario is planning to destroy the present system of rent control;

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 or in the Common Sense Revolution document;

"Whereas a number of Conservative candidates in ridings with high tenant populations campaigned during the 1995 election on a platform of protecting the current rent control system;

"Whereas the government has consulted with special-interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5 million tenants in Ontario;

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province."

I have affixed my name to this and I agree with the petitioners.

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the matter of selling Ontario Hydro is likely to come before the Legislature in the near future;

"Whereas we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, who have, through the payment of electricity rates, paid for Ontario Hydro, are concerned about privatization of Ontario Hydro, leading to higher rates, lower reliability and compromised nuclear safety,

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

"Please preserve the public ownership of Ontario Hydro and refuse to sell this important public asset."

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned of Cornwall area, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the provincial government's deep cutbacks and cancellations of public services cause tremendous harm to the local economy; and

"Whereas this attack on the social fabric of our community goes far beyond the agenda of the Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas these cuts will cause unacceptable damage to the community health, justice system, child protection, road safety and education services; and

"Whereas we represent well-informed service providers and a significant portion of the local base;

"Be it resolved that we call on the provincial government to cease all announcement of cutbacks to ensure that they are all subject to open, democratic consultation and debate."

I've also signed the petition.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Transportation Minister Al Palladini is proposing legislation that will cost many towns their bus service.

"Bus companies are currently required to provide service for smaller towns as a condition of being given rights to high-profit routes and charter markets. Minister Palladini's plan to deregulate will eliminate all conditions and requirements. As a result, hundred of smaller communities like ours will lose bus service.

"Minister, people in smaller towns need bus service just as much as people in big cities. We depend upon buses to visit family and friends, to get to appointments in nearby towns, to ship our Christmas presents and to receive our repair parts. The undersigned call upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to oppose bus deregulation and the elimination of our bus service."

This is signed by 15 individuals, and I'm affixing my signature as well.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition today to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, with 1,092 signatures:

"Whereas

section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and affirms both the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada as they existed in 1982;

"Whereas the Mohawks of Tyendinaga do not have aboriginal or treaty rights to fish or hunt off their reserve unless they do so under the same laws that apply to non-natives;

"Whereas several infractions under conservation laws have been reported and documented over the past few years, such as spearing fish in fish sanctuaries, gill netting, commercialization of the resource, and hunting out of season, and no charges were laid;

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

"The government of Ontario take immediate action to stop all illegal hunting and fishing activities by the Mohawks of Tyendinaga and enforce conservation laws for both natives and non-natives equally, as dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada."

I have affixed my signature.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, do not want the rent-geared-to-income program to be eliminated. This program provides decent housing for low- and middle-income tenants, consisting of 40% seniors, 42% families, 18% special-needs and disabled tenants.

"We believe a change to the US-style voucher system proposed by this government will destroy our communities and change the fabric of life in Ontario."

I so agree by affixing my signature to this petition.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council:

"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 that the health care system should be made as efficient as possible; and

"Whereas the quality of health care 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 affix my signature also.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today with a petition signed by a number of residents from Scarborough. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the recommendations of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to close inpatient paediatric beds, the special care nursery and the burn unit at Scarborough General Hospital resulting in significantly reduced access to paediatric, newborn and burn care for a large geographic area of Scarborough; and

"Whereas the paediatric unit, special care nursery and burn unit at Scarborough General Hospital provide very cost-efficient, quality care;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to:

"

(1) Continue paediatric services including inpatient paediatric beds,

"

(2) Continue special care nursery services,

"

(3) Continue and combine Metropolitan Toronto's burn care

"At Scarborough General Hospital!"

I am pleased to affix my name to this petition.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and operating on a five-year budget of $865,000 they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 20,000 meals;

"Whereas the city of Chatham and the county of Kent rely on Transition House to meet the needs of its troubled youth and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community;...

"Whereas it has been shown that massive cuts to health services, school systems and social services have a definite impact on statistics of children and youth in crisis;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut its direct funding to Transition House by almost $48,000 annually and placed the existence of Transition House in jeopardy;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham."

I affix my signature to it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Minister of Labour.

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to your government's proposed changes to Ontario's workers' compensation system including elimination of the bipartite board of directors; reduced temporary benefits; introduction of the three-day period from the time of injury with no pay; legislated limits on entitlement, thereby excluding repetitive strain, chronic pain and stress claims from eligibility for compensation; reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements.

"Workers' compensation is not a handout; it is an insurance plan for which premiums are paid; it is a legal obligation that employers have to employees who 80 years ago traded their right to sue employers in return for this insurance plan.

"Therefore, we demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent injuries, no reduction in current Workers' Compensation Board staff levels and that the bipartite board structure be left intact."

I affix my signature also.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

"Canada was founded on Christian-Judaeo principles. While the multicultural mosaic of our nation is clearly recognized and celebrated, we, the undersigned citizens, concerned about the lack of religious content within the public education system, implore the government of Ontario to give serious consideration to the return of the Lord's Prayer to the classrooms of our schools, since the content of the prayer should not be offensive to any religious tradition or nationality. The intent is not to impose one particular belief, but rather to maintain the foundation upon which our country was founded."

This petition has 350 signatures on it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 20,

An Act to promote economic growth and protect the environment by streamlining the land use planning and development system through amendments related to planning, development, municipal and heritage matters / Projet de loi 20, Loi visant à promouvoir la croissance économique et à protéger l'environnement en rationalisant le système d'aménagement et de mise en valeur du territoire au moyen de modifications touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement, la mise en valeur, les municipalités et le patrimoine.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): When we adjourned, the member for Rainy River had the floor.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I was of course speaking when we last were dealing with this matter. I intend to make a few brief comments today about the bill and, generally, my views on the bill after sitting on committee and hearing some of the views of those people who came forward.

I indicated last day that in my view the bill was not going to provide the kind of environmental protection that we need in terms of land use planning. I indicated that for the most part this bill is simply a wish list for that part of the development industry that wants to make a quick buck at the expense of the environment, and the shame of it all is that this government actually believes that that contributes to sustainable development, that that's the kind of development you want to base your economy around.

I think we know from examples elsewhere in the world that that is exactly the kind of development you don't want to base your economy on, that it is quite wrongheaded, that down the road the costs of that kind of quick-buck approach are far more than the few dollars the government might stand to make or the development industry might stand to make by the kind of irresponsible land use planning that will be engendered in this bill.

I want to say a few words about agricultural land, because I believe it is in terms of agricultural land that a great deal will be lost. What this bill will allow is the kind of haphazard development out there which will ensure that our prime agricultural land is eaten up on a piecemeal basis. Let me mention just some of the things I believe are going to happen.

First of all, we need to keep context in mind here. If the Ministry of Natural Resources is going to shed 2,000 of its staff -- I think it may be more than 2,000 of its staff -- we will simply not have the ecologists, the foresters, the land use experts in that ministry to ensure that environmental integrity is preserved. Conservation authorities are losing well over 50% of their staff, so they will not have the people available to ensure that good conservation measures are followed and to ensure that conservation of the land and conservation of resources is part of the development strategy.

The Ministry of Environment is also going through drastic cuts, so they will not have the personnel who will ensure that conservation rules and conservation principles are followed. Finally, the Ministry of Agriculture is going through at least a $156-million downsizing, which will mean that expertise will no longer reside in the Ministry of Agriculture either.

With all of that, with that loss of expertise, with that loss of knowledge and experience and wisdom and judgement from those ministries, there won't be that second stage, that second line of support that might be able to help out in the case of weak legislation. What it means then is that not only will this be very weak legislation, but the people who could have helped somehow to ameliorate weak legislation simply won't be there.

I predict that what will happen is we will see acre after acre, township after township of good agricultural land eaten up by unplanned development, by let's-make-a-quick-buck development, by development that frankly is not in tune with the kind of land use planning we need to see as we enter the 21st century.

As our agricultural production is becoming more important, as our agricultural land has greater and greater potential in terms of producing for not only the Canadian market but the North American market and even the offshore market, as all of this potential is developing, this government's legislation is going to negative that potential and is going to eat away, decimate the possibilities of agricultural production in this province and is going to decimate the very best agricultural land in this province.

What are we left with? Where are we headed at the end of the day with this government and this legislation? Viewed from the broader context, this creates a very bad precedent indeed. As a province, as part of Canada, we are trying to persuade other jurisdictions to clean up their air, to participate in the cleanup of the Great Lakes, to participate in the lowering of sulphur dioxide in the air, to participate in the lowering of carbon monoxide in the air.

We are trying to persuade jurisdictions in other continents not to burn away the rain forest and further deplete the world environment. We are trying to persuade other jurisdictions to preserve chunks and pieces of their natural environment so that we preserve the environmental diversity of the world, the ecological diversity. Yet when we try to make those arguments, when those governments, when those jurisdictions point the finger back at us and say, "What have you done?" we will have nothing to show.

Worse than that, this government will have to admit that it has done less than was being done in the 1980s and the early 1990s, that it has gone back to a substandard approach to environmental planning, a substandard approach to land use planning, which sets no example for the rest of the world, which gives us no basis to argue from, which frankly puts us in the position of being one of the worst offenders.

Not only is this legislation bad for Ontario and bad for Ontario's land use planning, bad for Ontario's natural environment, bad for the future of our water resources, our air resources and our land resources, bad for our agricultural production in the longer term, bad in terms of the money it's going to cost because of the extra infrastructure costs associated with sprawling urban development; not only is it bad because of all those things, but it puts us in a very bad position in terms of the relationships we have with other jurisdictions when we talk to them and try to persuade them to clean up their environment, try to persuade them to be a more environmentally responsible jurisdiction on the world stage.

We have absolutely no place to argue, no stage to argue from. With this bill and with the cuts that are happening in the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and the conservation authorities, Ontario has become one of the worst offenders. That is a shame.

But this government, because it is so preoccupied with making a quick buck, doesn't understand that you don't have to scratch very far with almost every individual in this province to find that people really do care about the environment.

I will say that three or four years down the road, when people have had a chance to reflect on this government's abysmal environmental record, on its abysmal record for the protection of the landscape, its abysmal record in terms of being an ecologically responsible government, they will turn on this government and this government will be taught a lesson about how important environmental issues are to all people: people who have money, people who do not have money, people who have wealth and status, and people who come from the ordinary communities of this province.

So the government can go ahead and pass this legislation. They will be taught a lesson, because this is shameful legislation, it is destructive legislation, and when people have an opportunity to understand that, they will come back and they will punish this government for it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was glad the member took the full time to speak because it allowed him to talk about many of the problems that exist with this particular bill, one that some people have called a bill designed to destroy planning and environment in the province of Ontario. That's probably an overstatement, but it certainly is a concern that people have about the provisions of this bill. The member dealt with a number of those provisions whereby he recognized that the long-term implications of this legislation are to be worried about.

We heard today that the government was abandoning intervenor funding, which has allowed citizens in our province to be able to hire legal counsel and experts in various fields in order that they may participate in various hearings. With the loss of the environmental intervenor funding in combination with this bill, we see a major step back in terms of the planning process and the ability of individual citizens to have appropriate and effective access to that system. I think what we will see will be a number of mistakes that will be made that in the long run will be costly.

If you look at some of the projects which were stopped or considerably altered as a result of intervenor funding, for instance in the planning process because planning is environmental planning as well as what we call Ontario Municipal Board-type planning, if you look at the number of projects that were significantly altered as a result of good intervention by citizens' groups, you would find that governments in the long run will save money.

Unfortunately, many of the provisions of this bill represent a step backward because they allow people less access to the system. They give developers a leg up, which the government wants to do because they want development to take place in the province. Development, however, when it takes place, should be good development, and I think that this bill is a step in the wrong direction in terms of ensuring good development in Ontario.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to take these few minutes to congratulate my colleague from Rainy River in regard to the comments he made around land use. I would say in keeping with that, he's quite right. Really what you've got here is a government that's intent on changing the rules of the game so that it's so heavily weighted towards the developers that in the end the very people that the projects are supposed to benefit are really the ones that are going to be left by the wayside, especially so when you take a look at what they're doing in regard to the provincial policies in the province.

When the provincial policies are being rewritten, I think they're being rewritten in such a way that the weight of those rules are really put in the favour of developers, to the point that I think we're forgetting what the whole idea was in the first place, which is to have policies that reflect good planning in the province of Ontario but also policies that reflect protection of our environment.

When my colleague from Riverdale today asked the question of the Minister of Environment and Energy in regard to the whole question of intervenor funding, I think it's only another piece of the puzzle that we're seeing. We're seeing that the government, under Bill 20, is changing the rules so that they're so weighted towards the developers that a lot of projects will go forward I fear that shouldn't go forward or are not good for the community in regard to their net impact on the environment.

After that, you see what happened today with my colleague from Riverdale when she asked the question to the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Environment is saying, "Well, intervenor funding isn't important," and that the people will be able to go out and move forward their complaints through the courts by doing a number of things, short of having intervenor funding from the government.

I would just say it was a comment made in jest, but she's suggesting almost that people, in order to get the money necessary to go to the courts, would have to do bake sales in order to raise the dollars --

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Not in jest.

Mr Bisson: No, I'm just saying it's --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Shame.

Mr Bisson: -- shameful. She's suggesting that they can go out and do bake sales in order to raise money to go forward with complaints against bad development in the province when it comes to larger projects. So I would move that we change her title and we call her the minister responsible for bake sales.

Ms Churley: This gives me a two-minute opportunity to do a little bit of summing up here. I want to congratulate my colleague from Rainy River. It's very clear that what this government is doing is curtailing public participation in the planning process, just as today we saw with intervenor funding where public participation is being almost completely curtailed. It's not correct when the minister says that after-the-fact funding, when the hearing is over, there could be, might be, some funding awarded. We don't know that. There are not a lot of experts and lawyers out there who are able to or who are willing to work for free in a sometimes lengthy, complicated process.

This government is acting almost in secret. Most of the things that they're doing, dismantling environmental protection, which we have built up for over 20 years in this province, we're seeing it all go down the drain right under our noses, and overall the public aren't even aware that it's happening.

It's the same thing with Bill 20. In the long run, we know that the ramifications of this bill will be that it'll cost taxpayers more in the long run. Urban sprawl costs taxpayers more money. Bad environmental development will cost taxpayers more money down the road, and furthermore, the government will not even achieve its stated goal with this bill, and that is to cut the length of the process, to cut red tape.

What we see very clearly, what will happen is that there'll be a lot more site-by-site specific hearings before the OMB, either from the developer or from community or environmental groups. So it isn't even going to achieve what they hoped to achieve. I would suggest they withdraw --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Gerretsen: There's perhaps one other aspect to the whole public process that can be mentioned at this time. We all realize that the time limit that the public has to respond to the various proposals has been drastically reduced by 10 days. The general theory by the government is that this somehow speeds the planning process along, when we well know that what usually takes the length of time in the planning process is the length of time that, administratively, a planning staff or a city council or indeed the various government departments here at Queen's Park take to actually deal with a development proposal.

By taking 10 days away from the public appeal process, we really aren't doing anything at all.

The other thing that ought to be said about the public process is that quite often when you get the public involved in a project early on in the game and when everybody around the table knows exactly what everybody's position is, you can actually end up with a development proposal and with a final development that is a lot more appealing and attractive to everyone. This notion that by getting the public involved you are somehow hindering development and that things just will not be approved as quickly as possible or that that will detract from the development is completely erroneous.

It's always been my experience that public input is something that can be valued and something that in effect can lead to an improvement of the final product.

Finally, I would just say one thing with respect to the one-window approach, simply this: Unless we know what the public protocols are between the various departments and unless those protocols are being delivered publicly so that the public knows exactly what the process is internally -- the kind of program you're setting up by having the one-window approach is a secretive process -- the public will not know the manner in which the final decision is reached by the government.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Rainy River, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Hampton: Since this brings to an end the debate and I understand we're going to vote in a couple of minutes, let me just say in response a couple of things about the comments that were made.

First of all, the member for St Catharines -- I know that he stands almost alone in his party in opposing this legislation -- I want to thank him for his courageous position and his courageous response, because I know there are many Liberal backbenchers who in fact support what the government is doing here and think this kind of helter-skelter, quick-buck development is more than acceptable, is good for people. So I want to thank the member for St Catharines for his comments.

I want to thank the member for Cochrane South as well. As the housing and municipal affairs critic for our caucus, he knows very well what some of the repercussions of sprawling urban development will be in terms of the increased costs of infrastructure and providing services, and in effect the subsidy that taxpayers will have to provide to the private developers. I suspect that, given this government, they think it is quite proper for taxpayers to provide subsidies to private developers.

In fact, I think it's part of their overall strategy that you take money from people on social assistance, you take money out of education, you take money out of health care, but you subsidize private developers. I think that's very much in line with their vision of the world.

I also want to thank our environment critic, who knows full well the long-term environmental consequences of this very destructive piece of legislation.

As I said earlier, I think this is a shameful piece of legislation and will put Ontario in a very dishonourable position on the environmental record.

The Acting Speaker: Time has expired. Any further debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, Mr Hardeman, has moved third reading of Bill 20. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, I believe we have all-party agreement that this should be a five-minute bell.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. This will be a five-minute bell.

The bells rang from 1545 to 1550.

The Acting Speaker: Will the members please take their seats.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a t