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

April 1, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L175 - Tue 1 Apr 1997 / Mar 1er Avr 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD WEEK

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CASINOS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

APPOINTMENT OF HOUSE OFFICERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AIR QUALITY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SECTOR SALARIES

AIR QUALITY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SECTOR SALARIES

TIME ALLOCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PALLIATIVE CARE

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LIGHTING UP ONTARIO

CHILD WELFARE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

FARM RETAIL SALES TAX REBATES

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

HIGHWAY FINANCING

LAND TRANSFER TAX REBATE

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GEORGIAN WOOD ADDICTION CENTRE

ROUTE 17

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

GOVERNMENT AGENDA

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MACASSA LODGE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

OPPOSITION DAY

GOVERNMENT AGENDA

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Le 22 mars dernier, plus de 10 000 personnes de toutes les régions de la province et de toutes les affiliations politiques se sont rassemblées pour dire au gouvernement et à sa Commission de restructuration des soins de santé qu'ils commettaient une grave erreur en proposant de fermer l'hôpital Montfort. Dans les jours prochains le gouvernement va recevoir une pétition avec bien au-delà de 100 000 noms protestant contre la fermeture de Montfort.

Le ministre sait que la population francophone de l'Ontario lui demande à toutes fins pratiques unanimement de les appuyer publiquement pour empêcher une grave injustice. Il est temps pour le ministre de s'occuper de ceux et celles qu'il représente. Monsieur le ministre, quand allez-vous agir ?

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today on this first day of a week in which we will be considering some legislation that will have a very severe and directly negative impact on communities and the way that we deliver services across this province. I speak, of course, of Bill 103 and Bill 104, but most particular to my community is the concern that we have around the impact of that bill on Sault Ste Marie.

I have been in my community for the last two weeks and have spent some significant time talking with my constituents. To a person, they have shared with me their very real reservations about the way that school boards are going to be restructured and the impact that may have on the delivery of services, those services for our students that we've all come to appreciate in this province.

I visited a couple of schools when I was home, one the S.F. Howe public school, and the other the Francis H. Clergue public school in Sault Ste Marie. I have to tell you, I was totally impressed with the atmosphere that was being created there by the administration and by the teachers. They tell me that they're very concerned, at S.F. Howe in particular, that a very effective junior kindergarten/senior kindergarten program that is operating there now that serves the needs of local families and parents may disappear if any more money is taken out of the system. So today on behalf of Sault Ste Marie I object to the imposition of Bill 104.

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD WEEK

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this Legislature and salute the farmers of Ontario.

As the members of this House, rural and urban alike, are no doubt aware, Ontario has the largest and most diversified agriculture and food industry in Canada. It is an industry we can all be proud of. The diversity of products harvested from Ontario farms can be matched nowhere else in this country and indeed in the world. Ontario produces more than 200 commodities, accounts for 38% of all Canadian agrifood economic activity and leads all provinces in agrifood exports with $5 billion annually. Our farm products make their way on to tables of consumers across Canada and, increasingly, around the world.

As a food producer myself, I know all about the hard work of the dedicated farm families who are the backbone of the industry. As business operators they invest their time, money and management, they pay taxes, create jobs and build communities. They deserve our thanks and our support.

It is in this spirit that I ask all members of the Legislature to join me in recognizing the vital role the agriculture industry plays in this province and the important contribution it makes to Ontario's economy by declaring this week, April 1 to 4, Agriculture and Food Week.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You know what? I'd like to hear the rest, but you're out of time. Sorry.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): We understand that the Minister of Health intends to eliminate 253 beds for severely disturbed psychiatric patients in Metro Toronto. Has he considered the sheer chaos and confrontational clashes that this will create between our police and the psychiatric patients? We're not surprised that Alison Guyton, executive director of the mental health program services for Metro, said that restructuring plans to cut the psychiatric beds in Metro will cause "serious problems." Does he think Metro has the capacity to pick up the slack of deinstitutionalization? Absolutely not.

The tragedy of Mr Yu, a mental patient shot dead on a TTC bus, will be repeated as aberrant mental patients will be pushed out of hospitals. Public safety will also be affected. Is the minister prepared to take responsibility for such actions?

The minister is saying that beds will not close unless community support is in place. Let's look at Queen Street Mental Health Centre. Hundreds of patients are wandering around the streets, marching in and out of this hospital where the recidivism rate is over 76%. Are community support services in place? No. How can the present situation improve when the minister cuts beds and kicks out hundreds more? Let me give the minister an example. Last year our police were called over 300 times to apprehend --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

CASINOS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, you will know that I have raised a concern in this Legislature that the Mike Harris Tories have decided to force a casino on my community, the community of the Beaches, despite the fact that the residents of the Beaches do not want a casino in our neighbourhood.

I have asked the Premier to give me assurances that he will not force it on our community when our community doesn't want it. He has refused to answer that question. He said that because they're replacing roving charitable casinos, we just shouldn't be worried. I want to let you know what the difference is.

The roving casinos operate for only three days at a time during the daytime and the evening; these new permanent casinos will operate for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, throughout the whole year. There is a maximum of only 30 tables in the roving casinos; now there will be a maximum of 40 tables and 150 video slot machines. In the old casinos, the roving casinos, there was a $10 maximum on the bet; now the maximum is going to be $100. Before, there was $100 million a year in Ontario bet in charitable casinos; now there will be over $1 billion.

One of the biggest changes is that before, during the election, Mike Harris said no community would have a casino unless they voted for it in a referendum; now he refuses to allow a referendum. The people of Beaches-Woodbine don't want it, and we don't want these big-time operators like the Ontario Jockey Club and Casino Windsor, which have both expressed an interest in running the casino in our community. We don't want them in our neighbourhood. We say no.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just to remind the gallery, you can't applaud; you can watch.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): In Ontario, a wide variety of high-quality foods are readily available at competitive prices. Ontario's agrifood industry does a wonderful job presenting the consumer with economical, appealing, safe and nutritious foods. In reality, the process of delivering food to consumers is highly complex, employs thousands of people and generates billions of dollars in economic activity.

In Huron county, the area I represent, farm-gate sales are nearly $450 million. Huron is running seventh in the country, ahead of Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island or the total farm-gate sales of New Brunswick and Newfoundland combined. Tonight the agricultural community of Ontario is pleased to invite the members of the Ontario Legislature to a Taste of Ontario, which showcases the world's finest food and wine produced right here our province.

I remind colleagues that with every possible opportunity we should thank a farmer and commend the hardworking agricultural community in Ontario for their dedication to the industry and their tremendous accomplishments. Please join me in showing your appreciation of our representatives from the agricultural community who are in the east lobby today.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): When Premier Harris visits St Catharines to attend a Conservative Party fund-raising dinner tomorrow night he should remember his commitment to the people of Ontario and their hospitals in the election campaign leaders' debate in May 1995. Mike Harris stated clearly, and I quote, "Certainly I can guarantee that it's not my plan to close hospitals."

The Niagara hospital restructuring steering committee, faced with the knowledge that an additional $44 million will be cut from hospital operating budgets on top of the dramatic cuts already being implemented, has recommended the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby, Douglas Memorial in Fort Erie, Port Colborne hospital and Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital.

This is completely unacceptable to me and to the people of the Niagara Peninsula, and all the announcements of so-called reinvestments will not fool the people of Niagara into accepting this severe reduction in hospital services. When Dr David Foot, the author of the best-selling book Boom, Bust and Echo, was asked what he would recommend to Premier Harris for the Niagara region with its demographic makeup, an older-than-average population, he stated boldly and clearly, "Don't close hospitals."

The closing of Niagara hospitals to feed the bizarre provincial income tax that will benefit the wealthiest people to the greatest extent is sheer madness. The people who will be outside of the Ramada Parkway to stand up for their hospitals will certainly bring this message home clearly to the Premier of this province.

Je pense que ça démontre que ce gouvernement n'est pas engagé à donner les services nécessaires aux francophones de la province. Ils regardent la francophonie de l'Ontario d'une manière que je trouve très triste. Il nous a pris des années de mettre en place des services pour les francophones, et pendant 1997 le gouvernement de l'Ontario a l'intention de tout fermer pour les francophones. Ce n'est pas acceptable.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Contrary to the member for St Catharines, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, and the minister responsible for seniors' issues, Cam Jackson, for making the health care reinvestment announcement recently in St Catharines. As the St Catharines Standard front page story said, "The health care money was welcomed."

The reinvestment of $8.7 million was for funding brand-new programs which include mental health projects and long-term community services. As Minister Wilson said, and I agree completely, "It is essential that these types of community programs be in place before any hospitals merge, close or beds are lost."

What is also important to me and to the entire Niagara region is that the ministers listened. They listened to the experts in the community who gave advice and opinions on how to reinvest. They listened to the Niagara caucus and our concerns that restructuring be done right, particularly as we move forward with the hospital and health care restructuring process. For me personally, I expect them to continue to listen, since five of the Niagara region's 10 hospitals are in my St Catharines-Brock riding.

Once again, thank you to Ministers Wilson and Jackson for the much-needed reinvestment.

APPOINTMENT OF HOUSE OFFICERS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to bring to the attention of the members of the House the following appointments that have been made to the list of officers who serve this House:

Effective today, Mrs Deborah Deller will assume responsibilities as Clerk Assistant and executive director of legislative services. Mrs Deller is well known to all the members and I'm certain that she will continue to provide her valued advice to you.

Mr Dennis Clark, our new Sergeant at Arms, assumes his responsibilities today.

Ms Lisa Freedman and Mr Todd Decker have been appointed clerks at the table. As table officers, they will serve the members in a permanent capacity and assist the Clerk and Clerk Assistant in providing procedural advice to the Speaker and to the members.

I am certain that all members will join with me in congratulating Mrs Deller, Mr Clark, Ms Freedman and Mr Decker as they assume their new duties. Congratulations and welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AIR QUALITY

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The Ontario government believes the people of this province have the right to breathe clean air. Unfortunately this right is being threatened by increasing smog levels, especially in the greater Toronto area and throughout southwestern Ontario.

In addition to the severe toll it exacts on our environment, smog is known to aggravate a wide range of serious health ailments, especially respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis. My ministry estimates, based on studies by Health Canada and others, that ground level ozone and other components of smog cause about 1,800 premature deaths annually in our province. Worst of all, it is the most vulnerable, that is, children and the elderly, who suffer the most.

The Ontario government is taking action on a number of fronts to combat this problem.

Our ministry has prepared an accelerated three-year plan to ensure that Ontario standards, with an emphasis on air, are brought up to date after 20 years of neglect. This will mean tougher standards than those currently on the books, some by as much as 600%. Late last year, I placed this proposed plan on the environmental registry for public consultation.

In addition, my ministry is leading the development of a comprehensive smog plan in partnership with industry, business and the public. We have set aggressive goals to significantly reduce the number of smog alert days in southern Ontario by the year 2015.

We will shortly release the results of two pilot projects on vehicle emissions testing. The information and experience we gained give us a solid foundation for developing a vehicle inspection and maintenance program that is practical, affordable and convenient for motorists.

Today I am pleased to inform the Legislature that we have taken an important step to improve Ontario's air quality this coming smog season. We have amended regulation 271 to require gasoline refiners and blenders to produce lower-volatility gasoline from May 15 to September 14 each year. This will mean that there will be significantly less smog-causing fumes released annually from summer-grade gasoline. In fact, with the amended regulation 271 in place, we expect to see an 18,000-tonne reduction in the amount of smog-causing volatile organic compounds released into the air each year.

The government is committed to improving the health of our environment for the people of Ontario. We are taking action to provide cleaner air through a series of tough measures against smog. The amendment to regulation 271 will help to protect the air quality of our communities. A reduction in the amount of gasoline fumes escaping into the atmosphere will mean less smog and healthier lungs for us all.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SECTOR SALARIES

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I rise today to table information made public under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. We on this side of the Legislature have always understood that tax dollars do not belong to government, they belong to taxpayers. It is our job as government to make sure we manage the dollars wisely and carefully. When the public sector spends money, it is spending taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent.

To this end, on November 29, 1995, we introduced the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. Under this legislation, public sector organizations that receive public funding must disclose names, positions and compensation paid to employees whose salary was $100,000 or more in the previous calendar year.

Last year, under this new legislation, often referred to as the sunshine law, we tabled for the first time information on the salaries of the broader public sector employees who earn more than $100,000. This was a major step towards making the public sector more accountable to Ontario taxpayers. Today, once again, I am making available information on compensation for senior public sector employees. Disclosure under this legislation gives taxpayers a chance to see how an organization's performance and responsibilities compare to the way it compensates its senior people.

Organizations subject to this legislation include: Ontario government ministries and their agencies; the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; provincial crown corporations and agencies such as Ontario Hydro, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Workers' Compensation Board; municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities; and organizations that receive transfer payments from the province of at least $1 million a year or 10% of their gross revenue if that amount is $120,000 or more. Organizations are required to give the public access to this information by March 31 of the following calendar year.

I note that this year the compiled information will be available on the Ministry of Finance's Web site on the Internet as well.

We made a commitment to the people of Ontario to take a more open and accountable approach to government by publishing salaries paid to senior public sector officials. We are keeping our word and will continue to do so.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the Minister of Finance's statement. We certainly look forward to the report and obviously have no difficulty with the law, although I will say this: For our party, we had expected the Minister of Finance to be talking about employment. We have been off for several weeks. The minister issued a report dated March 19 that indicated that in the last six months Ontario has lost 57,000 jobs. The rest of Canada has gained 72,000 jobs.

I don't mean to belittle the report, and certainly all of the unemployed in the province will want to get at the Web site and look at all those people out there who can make more than $100,000 and be envious of them, probably get angry with them, but for us the priority is jobs and we see from your own report 57,000 fewer jobs in the province of Ontario than six months ago.

I remember when Mike Harris, then in opposition, went around the province and said he was going to solve this problem. We now have 30,000 more people out of work in Ontario, according to the Minister of Finance's own report, than the day the Premier became the Premier. We find the unemployment rate going up. We find that the young people in this province now have an unemployment rate of 18.8%, up 2.3% from the same period a year ago. I'm sure the people of Ontario, particularly all those young people unemployed and looking for work, will be interested in all those people making more than $100,000. We certainly will welcome that information as well.

But we would have expected that the priority of the government today would have been the Minister of Finance getting up today and telling us what he's going to do about unemployment. The numbers come out this Friday. They can no longer continue to get worse, but we are going to have to see tremendous improvement over the next few months to even begin to make a dent in the growing unemployment in this province.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's not hard to figure out that the plans of the government and the Ministry of Environment are going up in vapour as the member makes this announcement today, because we find he has a ministry that is facing unprecedented budget cuts. Fully one third of his budget, millions upon millions of dollars, has been cut. We have one third of staff disappearing in the Ministry of Environment.

The minister can change all the standards he wants to change, but if he has nobody to do the inspections, nobody to do the enforcement and nobody to do the prosecutions, it's just on paper; it makes no difference to the people of this province.

As for his announcement on vehicle emissions, this must be at least the sixth time I've heard this announcement from the last minister and this minister. We have two minor pilot projects and they have done absolutely nothing else to deal with this problem.

In an interjection I mentioned the Reid vapour pressure to the minister and he looked at me blankly as though he didn't know what Reid vapour pressure was. I won't ask him during this question period, but supposedly the volatility of gasoline is being lowered in this province. I would like to know why he didn't include the level in his statement. It must be because he's embarrassed about the level.

All this government has done is abandon the environment. The only contribution they make to it is having the minister get up and announce and re-announce proposed programs for somewhere along the line. He tells us that by the year 2015, some 18 years from now, we're going to have air that is cleaner. People in this province are asking why this government hasn't already taken action. The air hovering over the Niagara Escarpment is getting bad and they've taken the Niagara Escarpment away from the jurisdiction of this minister, the only person who had any interest in saving the Niagara Escarpment, and given it to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Everybody knows what the Ministry of Natural Resources thinks of the Ministry of Environment. That's gone now. I can see why the minister would want to deflect attention from this power grab the Premier has initiated, taking away his responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment Commission and giving it to the Minister of Natural Resources and the good old boys in the Ontario Legislature, who will now make sure that we have an Escarpment Hilton, an Escarpment Holiday Inn and an Escarpment Ramada.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm interested in the minister's announcement today, given that this minister and his ministry are about to rewrite almost every line of environmental protection in this province, calling it red tape and job killers.

This ministry to date -- I'm just going to mention a few and I'm going to talk specifically to air quality, leaving aside the other ones today -- has eliminated the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards and cut funding for public transportation, and we all know that good, accessible public transportation goes a long way in terms of avoiding ground-level ozone. Bill 20, your new so-called Planning Act: You've gutted all the environmental protections in that act and in fact encourage urban sprawl, which encourages more individual traffic on the street. You've lifted the ban on incineration.

That also will lead to more air pollution. They've also laid off a third of their staff. About 32% of those staff are air staff.

So what does this all come down to? Volunteerism. I presume that over time some of these new standards are going to be developed. Who is going to be out there to make sure there is enforcement and compliance? Nobody. I can see where all this is going to go. This is all about volunteerism, and you're going to be able to report things are getting better because there's not going to be anybody there to tell us what's really going on. You are totally abandoning the environment, and people will see through what is happening today.

The last thing I want to talk about is this announcement that there are going to be two pilot programs for vehicle emissions testing. Our government, the NDP government, already did a big pilot program. We knew, as you should know, as a result of that pilot program that it is absolutely necessary to now proceed with the difficult issues, which I admit are there, in terms of a mandatory program. Get on with it.

Minister, you yourself stood in this House and said to the media there are about 1,800 deaths a year that we know of in Ontario due directly to bad air, smog, and you stand here today and talk about more voluntary programs. The people in this province just want you to get on with it. Stand up and tell the people that you're going to move ahead with real air pollution control here today. That is not what you are doing, and you should admit it.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SECTOR SALARIES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): We heard briefly from the Minister of Finance. What we heard from the Minister of Finance was another government attempt at a diversion. There are real issues out there for the Minister of Finance to deal with. One of the issues is, as has been stated already, the fact that the job numbers are getting worse, not better, and in particular much worse for young people.

Secondly, the Minister of Finance could deal with the fact that the government's tax scheme is overwhelmingly benefiting wealthy people, but it sure isn't producing any jobs. The people who already have incomes in excess of $500,000 or $1 million a year are doing very well, thanks to this government's tax scheme, but that tax scheme is not producing any jobs. But the minister wants to stay away from all that; he doesn't want to talk about that.

The minister also doesn't want to talk about how this is the government that has raised the deputy ministers' salaries from the $130,000-to-$140,000 range up into the $170,000-to-$180,000 range. This is the government that insists that the highest-paid civil servants should be paid even more, but it doesn't want to acknowledge that either.

Also, this is a government that has recently hired a civil servant to sell off to the private sector some of the province's best and most productive assets. The Minister of Finance could have disclosed today the salary of that individual. We understand that individual is going to be paid something in excess of $200,000 a year, but no disclosure on that.

Again, a rather inadequate attempt at a diversion by the Minister of Finance. He doesn't want to talk about the fact that no jobs are being created. He doesn't want to talk about the fact that his tax scheme is only benefiting the wealthiest people in this province, not producing any jobs. He doesn't want to talk about the fact that this is a government that has overwhelmingly raised the salaries of the richest --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

TIME ALLOCATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I will ask you to take into consideration and perhaps reserve on. You may in your deliberations find that in fact it involves a point of privilege, but I raise it as a point of order pursuant to

section 46(a), which is the

section of the standing orders that sets out the right of the government to move a time allocation motion. As you know, the government has, pursuant to that section, moved a time allocation motion with respect to Bill 103.

The relevant sections of that time allocation motion that I want to address are paragraph 4, which sets out, "That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill for clause-by-clause consideration commencing Thursday, March 6, 1997, from 9 am to 12 pm and from 3:30 pm until completion of clause-by-clause," and paragraph 5, which sets out the requirement for all proposed amendments to be filed with the clerk of the committee by 7 pm on March 5, and that by 5 pm on Thursday, March 6, those amendments not yet moved would be deemed to be moved, and then it governs the method by which those amendments would be voted on.

The other relevant clause of the time allocation motion that I will refer you to is paragraph 8, which sets out that one hour shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House, and then proceeds to set out that at the end of that time any amendments that had not been moved would be deemed to have been moved and sets out the process for disposing of all remaining amendments and sections of the bill.

Mr Speaker, the point that I want to raise with you is one that I believe has not been explored in the Legislature before and it is with respect to the actual time allocation motion that was passed and the intent of the members of the assembly when that motion was passed -- our understanding and our intent.

If you look to the precedent of how bills have been handled within committee and if you look to the actual instructions set out in this motion, I think you will agree that the members of this Legislative Assembly would have had the understanding that during the clause-by-clause session set out on March 6 the members of that committee would have been dealing with substantive amendments to the bill that the government and opposition parties would have proposed and those substantive amendments to the bill at that time, during clause-by-clause, would have been debated and disposed of, as is set out by the means provided for in the time allocation motion.

As you will be aware that did not happen. The government chose not to proceed with tabling amendments at that time and in fact informed people that amendments would be tabled when the Legislature came back for the committee of the whole process.

I would argue, now that the government has made an announcement about the nature of those amendments and the substantive number of those amendments, which have not been shared with the entire assembly but have been shared with the critics of the two opposition parties, but now that it is in the public domain we are aware that they will be making a significant number of amendments to the bill and are proposing to do that during the committee of the whole.

It is incumbent upon you, Mr Speaker, to look to whether the intent of the time allocation motion has been met or whether it has been violated by the government's actions.

I put to you that the members of this assembly, both based on precedent of how bills, even time-allocated bills, are normally dealt with as they go through a committee process, and based on the very fact that the government itself only set out in paragraph 8 of the time allocation motion one hour to deal with amendments in committee of the whole, that it would be a natural understanding that the vast majority of the substantive amendments would have been dealt with in the clause-by-clause process and that there would be, as is often the case, some further cleanup amendments, if I may call them that, or further amendments, but of a less substantive number or perhaps nature, that would be dealt with during committee of the whole.

The intent of the members of the assembly, who have ownership of this time allocation motion, who debated this and who passed this, our understanding of what was intended by the motion that we passed must be part of your consideration as to whether the government has in fact violated the intent of that motion by bringing forward those amendments now, only at the time of committee of the whole, and failing to do so during clause-by-clause.

Mr Speaker, the only redress that I can see available, if you do in consideration find that there has been a violation by the government of the intent of the time allocation motion passed by the members of this assembly, is that the government would be compelled to reconvene the committee and take those amendments to committee for clause-by-clause. There may be other methods of redress that you might think of that I'm not aware of.

As I have said, I do not believe this argument or point of order has been raised before and we are unable to find precedent to guide us in making this point of order and making the arguments to you, Mr Speaker.

But I simply conclude by saying that you are the guardian of the rules of this House and of the wishes of the members of this House and that the time allocation motion that was passed must be interpreted with the understanding and intent of the members of the Legislative Assembly who debated and who passed that motion, not the legislative agenda of the government or their wishes or their problems, their ineptness or anything else that may have caused this situation to arise, that the amendments were not tabled in the normal fashion during the committee.

When you look at the precedent of how bills have been dealt with in the past, and particularly when you look at the construction of this time allocation motion which set it out for clause-by-clause and then a very limited time in committee of the whole, I believe you will find that the understanding of the members of the assembly is quite different than how this bill has actually been handled by the government. I would ask you to give consideration to that point of order and rule on it at your convenience.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I think indeed there is a valid point being raised in that there was an expectation from members of the opposition that any amendments of significance would have been before the committee considering this bill, as opposed to being brought in at the very last minute for consideration in committee of the whole.

Recognizing that the time allocation motion calls for only one hour of debate of all the amendments, of all the changes of all the sections of the bill, and looking at the fact that the government brought in what it considers to be significant amendments to the bill -- the government itself, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I believe through the government House leader, through the Premier, as a whole has indicated that it believes these to be significant amendments to legislation, yet we did not see these amendments until the very last minute -- those amendments will have to be considered with all other amendments within a period of one hour within that time allocation.

The government's position would have been stronger, it seems to me, in this regard had the government brought forward these amendments during the committee hearings and had those amendments passed. It has a majority. If the majority of the government members saw fit, they could have passed those amendments at that time. Now it seems to me there should be significant debate on each of those significant amendments, not only by the government but by the opposition. We are being restricted by means of a time allocation motion to closing off debate after just one hour.

It seems to me that democracy will not be well served, that the legislative process certainly will not be well served. I think the legislation, as it eventually emerges if the government decides to proceed with the legislation, and we hope it does not, will not be the best possible piece of legislation because of the lack of time to deal adequately with the amendments the government has brought forward and the amendments the opposition has brought forward and will bring forward during consideration in committee of the whole of all the bill, the clause-by-clause of the bill, tomorrow when the government brings forward this legislation for consideration in committee of the whole.

I hope you will look at it in that light. It is a different light, I think. The opposition is putting forward a significant and compelling case for at the very minimum an expansion of the amount of time available, at the maximum for having the government go back and start the process once again, at least back at second reading and start the process once again: Go back to committee, deal with these matters in committee and then bring forward whatever it wishes to at a later point in time.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): There is nothing unusual about this process that has been undertaken. This is a normal committee of the whole process. It is a procedure that has been utilized I'm sure by parties opposite when they were in government between 1985 and 1990, and 1990 and 1995 --

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): To a greater extent than any other government.

Hon David Johnson: -- and, I'm informed, to a greater extent. This is a legitimate process. It allows for the case whereby public hearings are held, standing committee is in order, and amendments can come forward through the standing committee process. To the degree that amendments are not prepared or to the degree that further thought is required, then those amendments are legitimately entertained in the committee of the whole.

This is a process on which we've been working closely with the staff involved. We are assured that this is a normal process that has been pursued in the past. Indeed, unless my memory is incorrect, I believe that the social contract, for example, is a case in point where there were literally dozens, if not hundreds, of amendments that were put through the committee of the whole process.

Mr Speaker, I think you'll find on reflection that this is a normal process, the process to handle amendments which have come through the committee process. I don't think it would be appropriate to endeavour to understand motives or intent, or whatever, and to make rulings based on some machiavellian motives or intent, or whatever the opposition parties are alluding to.

It's simply a normal process: committee hearings, standing committee clause-by-clause, committee of the whole as a legitimate tool. It's been used down through the ages and I am quite confident that it will be used in future years as a normal part of the parliamentary process.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you to the government House leader, the member for St Catharines and the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Let's just be clear on a couple of issues up front. This House has adopted a motion for time allocation. Therefore, the Speaker and this Legislature are seized by that motion. That motion stipulates the requirements that we must live with, with respect to Bill 103 and any other bill that falls under time allocation.

The other fact is that amendments, be it at committee or be it at committee of the whole, are always in order. Any amendment can be made at either stage. An amendment doesn't necessarily have to be made at committee level and then also at the committee of the whole; they can be made at either/or. Particularly at committee, there are quite a few. But contrarily, if you, the opposition, lose a vote at committee, you may move the same amendment at committee of the whole.

Considering those facts, it may be unusual for opposition parties to be dealing with this bill in this fashion, it may be unusual that it's approached in this way, but let's be clear: Unusual doesn't make something out of order. Clearly, reading the time allocation motion, understanding that amendments are always in order and having been seized by that motion that was adopted by this House, it's academic. It would be considered in order now. Whether I reserved or not, it would still be in order and we would still have to carry on, as I see it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I think it's important that we not kid ourselves here today and this week. We understand that you've got the numbers, that the government, having a majority, can do anything it really pleases. But surely the issue is not what you can do; it's what you should do. In the circumstances of the megacity bill, it's important to recollect that just a short while ago the people of Metropolitan Toronto voted overwhelmingly against that bill.

They gave it very careful consideration and decided that they would have nothing to do with it. What do you think you ought to be doing in the circumstances? What should you be doing? In particular, should you be ignoring the clear and unequivocal response of the people of Metropolitan Toronto to your bill?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the Leader of the Opposition, we obviously took the results of the votes into consideration, as we took into consideration the 600 individuals who presented their position to the standing committee. We listened to that. We took it all into consideration and that's why we made a number of amendments to the bill that, in my opinion, satisfy the direction that the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto want to go in. What we're going to end up with is a single, unified city, while preserving local communities and local identities, which is what the majority of people in this municipality were telling us.

Mr McGuinty: Your amendments do not in any way, shape or form alter the very substance of the bill. The people of Metropolitan Toronto said they don't want you to take six cities and force them into one. Your bill continues to do that right up to this very moment.

They're also very concerned about taxes. At one point in time, this party had an obsession with taxes and keeping them down. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said last week -- and they said this taking into consideration the recent amendments -- "Even with your bogus amendments, it's a sure bet for higher taxes." You yourself have refused to guarantee that property taxes wouldn't rise in a megacity. Why are you going to ram this bill through and ensure that property taxes are going to go up as a result?

Hon Mr Leach: In my opinion, nothing could be further from being correct, that taxes are going to rise as a result of this. Any time you eliminate waste and duplication, any time you take seven of something and put them into one, any time you take six fire departments and create one, there are going to be savings. I don't think most reasonable people would have any problem in recognizing the ability to save the taxpayers money. We firmly believe that we will save $865 million in the first three years and probably $300 million a year every year after that, while providing government that is closer to the people, government that has less waste, less duplication and is more efficient.

Mr McGuinty: Not only are taxes going to go up; you should know that there's going to be a resulting loss in services and, just as importantly, there's going to be a loss of a sense of community. You know that Metro Toronto is recognized internationally as the best city in the world. That award was based largely on the fact that there is a strong sense of community lending shape to the cities in this region.

Your megacity is clearly going to dramatically weaken our communities at a time when they need those linkages. Furthermore, your bill does nothing to create the necessary linkages among members of the GTA. That's where the real problem is, and you're doing nothing about that whatsoever. Why are you deliberately ramming through your megacity, which is going to seriously weaken our sense of community in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mr Leach: The Leader of the Opposition is mistaken again, because we are dealing with the GTA. I've said repeatedly that I plan to have the GTA services board in place to coincide with the creation of a single, unified city in Metropolitan Toronto. We recognize that the GTA is a single entity that has to be coordinated from Hamilton right through to Oshawa, and we plan to do that. There are individuals working in the GTA at the present time, as we speak, to bring forward proposals to ensure that the GTA is coordinated.

As far as protecting communities in the new city of Toronto is concerned, by establishing the neighbourhood committees and community councils there will be an opportunity for local communities to have better representation, closer opportunities to speak to their local councillors, without having the confusion of multiple levels of government, which create a lot of waste and duplication.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Education. There is no doubt whatsoever that there is room for improvement in education in Ontario, and there are all kinds of good ideas out there. But if you look at them carefully, you'll see that they are held together by a single, common thread. Those good ideas are grounded in the notion that any improvements must, at a minimum, not harm classroom education. The problem is that none of those good ideas is found inside your Bill 104. Bill 104 is grounded in the notion that money can and will be found in education, and this will come at the expense of what is going on inside our classrooms.

The people who have presented at the committee which dealt with Bill 104 are very concerned about your plans to take more money out of education. I'm going to ask for your honesty on this issue. Tell me, how much more money do you intend to cut from Ontario's education budget?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the Leader of the Opposition, that is absolutely untrue; there is nothing in Bill 104 about reducing spending in education. Bill 104 is about moving from a very old system of governance in our education system to a new system. It's about revitalizing our education system in Ontario, it's about reducing bureaucracy, it's about reducing waste and duplication, and it's about reducing the number of politicians who are involved in our school system from about 1,900 to about 700. It's a bill that's supported by a large number of parents, students and taxpayers across Ontario who recognize the need for a renewed education system in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, your credibility on this issue drops faster than Bre-X stock. You have personally refused to guarantee funding. You yourself speculated openly --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I apologize, I might have touched a raw nerve on the part of investors in the government caucus.

Minister, you yourself have refused to provide any guarantees whatsoever with respect to funding. You have openly speculated about cutting another $1 billion, and last week there was a published report that you're looking at slashing as much as $1.5 billion from Ontario's education budget.

Let's talk about Bill 104 for a moment. At the committee hearings, about 90% of the parents and educators who appeared before the committee opposed your bill, saying it's going to harm their children's education. Why have you ignored the concerns of those presenters? Why have you made no real and substantive improvements to Bill 104? Why have you done that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: If there is anyone's credibility in this chamber coming into question, it would be that of the Leader of the Opposition, who continually spins into Bill 104 a whole variety of other things that may or may not happen. Bill 104 is about getting rid of waste and duplication, about reducing the number of bureaucrats in our education system and reducing the number of politicians. That's what's in Bill 104, that's what we presented to this Legislature and that's a bill I'm very proud of, and so are my colleagues.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not the guy who said I could find another $1 billion inside Ontario's education budget; I didn't say that. This minister against education said that, and that's what we're very much afraid of.

It's telling that the Premier described his dictatorial approach to Bill 26 as one of his biggest mistakes, and yet here we go again this week clearly with both the megacity and education bills. They're not listening. They're ignoring everything they've been told to date.

Maybe on a personal note, Minister, we ought to congratulate you because you are in effect about to create a very real crisis in Ontario's public system of education.

This government likes to talk about reinvestment, so I want to know -- I'm going to give you a chance here: As you go about cutting as much as $1.5 billion from our schools, will you commit today to reinvest every single penny back into the classroom?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the opportunity to say this: You are the guy who said about amalgamation: "We have an obligation to consider it. We can't back away from the prospects of amalgamation. As Liberals we're fiscally responsible. We've got to look at that."

On another quote, you are the guy who said, "I think there's generally fairly broad support for reduction in school boards." You're the guy who said that. If you want to talk about credibility in this chamber, this government is acting on its intentions and acting on its promises to the people of Ontario, unlike our friends across the floor.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the minister responsible for municipal affairs. I've spent much of the last three weeks meeting with municipal councillors, mayors and reeves across this province who are all very concerned about your downloading of health care, social services and social housing on to municipal property taxes. The download in just eight communities comes to over $1 billion. That's $1 billion that property taxpayers have to pick up. That doesn't include the downloading on the other 800 municipalities; just eight account for $1 billion.

Minister, even your friends in municipal government don't believe you any more. People don't want to pay higher property taxes so you can give your wealthy friends an income tax cut. Will you admit you were wrong? Will you withdraw your proposal to dump the costs of health care, social services and housing on to the backs of local taxpayers?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The leader of the third party might want to recall why we're having to do this: because of the mess that party over there got this government in. He might want to recall taking the debt to $100 billion. He might want to recall having $9 billion being made in interest payments. Then he wonders why this government had to come in and make some tough decisions to get this province's economy back on its feet. He might just want to reflect on that for a few minutes.

Mr Hampton: I'll reflect on somebody who used to be the commissioner of the Toronto Transit Commission and who used to come to a government I was a part of begging for money all the time. I remember you all too well, sir. I remember you all too well coming begging for money. So don't lecture us as you --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Government members, would you come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold on, hold on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Humber. Thank you. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Everyone in this province knows this government is cutting health care and education and community services to find in excess of $5 billion to finance its tax scheme. That's what's really driving all this.

I want to ask the minister about his related megacity project, which is also in a shambles. You're still trying to tell people that despite the fact 76% of them voted against your bill they don't matter. You're still so incredibly arrogant that you believe you can simply ignore the public will. People are still quite opposed to your bill. They see your amendments as merely shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic, nothing more. You still haven't addressed their issues. Will you finally withdraw Bill 103 and sit down and talk with people in the greater Toronto area about the real issues that confront them?

Hon Mr Leach: We did listen, we did talk. We had 600 delegates come to the committee to present their views and opinions as to what they wanted to see happen with a single, unified city. We also attended a number of public meetings to make sure we heard all of the voices of the people of Metropolitan Toronto present their views.

We have listened. We have made substantial amendments to the bill. As I said, we have achieved the best of both worlds. We will have a great unified, single city while still respecting the communities and neighbourhoods that people are so fond of and so proud of. Everything that we've done with the amendments to Bill 103 will address the concerns of those who came forward and presented.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Minister, you didn't listen. You didn't listen, because people did not have concerns just about the trustees or just about the other draconian powers and activities that you have in Bill 103. They were against the single, unified city. That's the key message you've ignored.

Since you persist in proceeding with this bill and with these amendments, will you at least show some little respect for what people said to you in the referendum and not proceed at this stage with the amendments that you filed and at least reconvene the committee and let us have a fuller discussion, something which you prevented us from doing by failing to submit the amendments to the committee as normally would have been the case?

Will you at least show that little gesture that will respect, at least in a very minimal part, if you're not prepared to withdraw the bill, the sense of frustration that's out there and the sense that leads people to call your government the arrogant government that it has become? Will you at least do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: Again, one of the reasons the amendments weren't tabled at committee was so that we could reflect on the results of the vote that had taken place, listen to what people had to say, and review the tapes and the data that had been presented at committee to fully understand what their concerns were.

They were concerned about the powers of the trustees; we've addressed that. They were concerned about the transition team; we addressed that. They were concerned about representation, whether 44 was too few; we addressed that. They were concerned about neighbourhoods, they were concerned about communities and they were concerned about municipal boundaries; we addressed that. All of the concerns that were put forward by the people of Metropolitan Toronto were listened to and are addressed in the amendments that we're bringing forward. We will have a unified city. We will have strong municipal commitment.

We will have strong community commitment. That's what the people of this great city wanted.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Health. We have learned of a shocking practice that is now happening in Ontario hospitals. Many hospitals now require palliative care patients to pay a daily fee. Palliative care is for people who are dying, people who have a terminal illness. Palliative care helps them control the pain and deal with the disease symptoms. Can the Minister of Health tell us why his government has set up a system where people who are dying have to pay a daily user fee in order to receive hospital care?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): For many years -- it began under the Liberal government -- long-term patients in our hospitals have paid a copayment. There's nothing new in that. In the palliative care stage, if they've been in a chronic facility for a great period of time, those copayments continue in most cases at the discretion of the hospital. That policy has not changed. It's been in place for many, many years.

Mr Hampton: Oh, something really has changed. This is the minister who under Bill 26 introduced a regulation to allow hospitals to charge patients in chronic care beds a daily fee, and this is the Minister of Health who has presided over a system where even your own hospital restructuring commission said in its Toronto report, "Currently, the ministry has no policy for determining the location of and planning benchmarks for hospital-based palliative care beds."

Because you have no system in place, what's happening is that hospitals are using that chronic care user fee, that user fee that is attached to a chronic care bed, to force palliative care patients to pay a daily user fee. That's the reality of what's happening, and it's happening because you've cut $800 million from their budgets and they're scrambling for money and they're making use of the scenario you created. When are you going to do something to correct --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Hon Mr Wilson: Because there is discretion in the system, I would appreciate it if the honourable member would give me the specific case of the hospital or hospitals he's referring to and I'd be happy, as I always am in response to members' questions, to immediately look into that to make sure the policy is not being abused in some way.

Second, no one on the face of the earth spends more on health care per person than Ontario today. The honourable member is in error. The health care budget is up significantly and it continues to grow. For once the NDP should acknowledge that revenues are up because of the tax cut. You left us with a huge deficit in the province. We've had to close about 14 ministries. There are fewer ministers and there's less of everything on this side of the House, and every penny and more has gone into an increased health care budget.

Why don't you just admit some facts for a change rather than flying off the cuff and using all the rhetoric that you use? The health care budget is up. It's never been stronger in this province. We're correcting a lot of problems of the last 10 years that your government and the Liberal government failed to address.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): You tried to shove that one. That didn't go anywhere.

The Speaker: I caution the member for Windsor-Sandwich, I hear you much clearer now. I guess it's from a few rows up. You must come to order. The Minister of Health has the floor. It's important I hear him as well.

Supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, you, and you alone, are responsible for the chaos that faces palliative care patients and their caregivers and their families. You want to know where? We can tell you because our colleague Peter Kormos uncovered the fact that this fee is being charged by Douglas Memorial Hospital, the Greater Niagara General, Port Colborne General, St Catharines General, Welland hospital, West Lincoln and Shaver Hospital. We're doing our work today, through the palliative care information centre, to find out where in Metro Toronto they charge it, because we know they do.

You're responsible. You have no plan for palliative care beds in hospitals, yet you're closing chronic care beds which often take on these patients. You're allowing hospitals to charge for those chronic care beds whether or not the patient in that bed is palliative. You and your commission have yet to present a coherent plan for long-term care which ensures that dying patients, who are either forced out of hospitals by this fee or who choose to die at home, have the level of care and support they and their families require. The need for palliative care is growing. When are you going to present an effective and comprehensive plan to deal with this very vulnerable population?

Hon Mr Wilson: Clearly the NDP's past has come back to haunt them. Mr Jackson and I recall being on that side of the House when you delisted long-term care from OHIP services, one of the 19 services you took out of OHIP and out of the Canada Health Act. So if there's a correction to be made here, this government once again would be happy to make the correction on behalf of seniors and on behalf of people who need palliative care. But we didn't delist long-term care; you delisted long-term care, and the chickens are coming back to roost. Once again, we'd be happy to fix the situation.

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the situation on Bre-X. As everybody knows, thousands of individuals have lost literally millions of dollars on this. The Ontario Securities Commission, as you know, reports to you. Their mission is to protect investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices and to foster fair and efficient capital markets and confidence in their integrity, an important role. Bre-X certainly, I think it's fair to say, has shattered a lot of confidence.

My question is this: When did the Ontario Securities Commission become aware of the problem, what steps did it take and when did they inform you of the problem?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm sure the honourable member is aware that the Ontario Securities Commission is an independent agency that operates on its own.

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

Hon Mr Eves: I hear the member for St Catharines saying, "Oh." Everybody in this province can certainly be proud that we do have an institution like the Ontario Securities Commission there protecting investors. It has a worldwide reputation as being one of the most vigilant securities commissions not only in Canada but indeed in all of North America.

They are an independent body, and I think it is very important that they remain such. They make their own decisions. They have very tough standards and they have set an example for the rest of the country to the point where, of course, we have other provinces and indeed the federal government talking about creating a national securities commission with its base here in Toronto, Ontario.

Mr Phillips: I had hoped the minister might provide some assurance for the public. The minister will know that on July 26 the commission sent its annual report to you, signalling its concerns about the budget that you've set for them, indicating that, as they say here: "During the past several years, it has operated with a high vacancy rate, due to budget constraints." It pointed out that they must be assured of adequate funding and managerial authority to discharge their mandate. "Failure to do so will severely erode the likelihood of successful outcomes."

Minister, I was trying to give you an opportunity to reassure the public, who are concerned out there right now, and to say that it is an arm's-length agency, I think you are failing to inform the public that it is the Ministry of Finance that sets their budget. They have indicated concerns, and my question is, and it's important for you to reassure the markets, does the Ontario Securities Commission have adequate resources to allow them to effectively carry out their responsibility?

Hon Mr Eves: Absolutely is the answer to that question. The member would probably also know -- if he didn't know this, he should have known this -- that I visited the Ontario Securities Commission last November and I made a commitment to the commission that in this coming fiscal year they will have between $3 million and $5 million added to their budget.

I made a commitment to them that over a period of a very short number of years they will become a fully self-funded operating agency in the province. I've also asked for the commission to report back to me with recommendations that they would make to the government to make them a totally independent, fully funded, self-funded, self-regulated commission.

I don't know why the honourable member chose not to mention any of that in his questions, and I think he is not doing the Ontario public any good, nor the Toronto Stock Exchange, nor the Ontario Securities Commission, to even begin to hint that Bre-X's problems are as a result of some sort --

The Speaker: New question, third party, member for Algoma.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. The minister will know that executive members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario division, are occupying the minister's office today. They are doing this because of their concern that under Bill 104 the government intends to remove successor rights and override collective agreements, to make it possible for private companies to take over the jobs of the people who care for and clean and maintain our schools or work in school offices and provide special services to children.

Last week in the committee the government members refused to support our amendment to delete the

section of Bill 104 which would require the proposed Education Improvement Commission to promote contracting out of these jobs. Instead the government members watered down the wording. However, the government is still singling out non-teaching staff in its effort to take $1 billion to $1.5 billion out of our education system.

Why is the government keeping, in Bill 104, the instruction to the Education Improvement Commission --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister of Education.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for clarifying for me today why it is that Sid Ryan and some associates might be in my office today. I was a little confused about it. We don't have an appointment, although I'm more than happy to make one and to have a meeting with those folks at any time. Unfortunately, there is no meeting and also they have chosen to be at my office on a day when I'm scheduled not to be there. I was a little confused about that. Given that the member opposite seems to know more about it than I do, I am pleased he brought that information forward today.

The reason my colleagues and I made an amendment to Bill 104 was to meet those very concerns he's speaking of, to make sure the language reflected our intentions. Let's be very clear about it: Our intentions are to have a first-quality education for every student in Ontario and to deliver that at a cost that represents a real value for the taxpayers of Ontario -- quality and value. My colleagues and I believe that's what we should be doing and that's what we are doing.

Mr Wildman: During the committee hearings we heard from all kinds of people -- school boards, trustees, teachers, parents, students -- about the downsizing and contracting out of these jobs. As a matter of fact we heard from Ernie Parsons, the chair of the Hastings County Board of Education, who told the committee: "Good things happen in our schools because of our non-teaching staff. I'm asking you to please allow us to locally recognize their dedication and continue to employ our current staff."

The member for Durham East has decided to introduce a private member's resolution. Flawed as it may be, it would ensure that the current employees, if there is contracting out, have the right to bid on those contracts. While I think that resolution doesn't go far enough, I'm asking the minister today if he will be in the House on Thursday to support the private member's resolution introduced by his colleague from Durham East.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to inform the member opposite that my colleague from Durham East is concerned about making sure that the people in our education system are dealt with professionally and with compassion and empathy if in fact some reductions are necessary, so obviously all my colleagues lean that way and are inclined to be concerned about those sorts of things, including myself.

There were a large number of people heard from as the committee travelled on Bill 104. A lot of concerns were heard from people who represented various unions and other groups, but there were also people who talked about improvements that could be made in the system of education. We heard the people from the Ottawa-Carleton French Catholic board, who have made extraordinary gains in the quality of their education system while being able to provide that with lower costs to their taxpayers.

That's the sort of thing we believe all the people of Ontario should be able to benefit from and Bill 104 will allow us to take those steps forward, in quality, in effectiveness and in real value for our education system.

LIGHTING UP ONTARIO

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Ontario Hydro, I understand, has a new initiative for sponsorship called Lighting Up the Theatres of Ontario. The Tarragon Theatre in my riding of St Andrew-St Patrick has been lucky enough to be chosen for this initiative and I wonder if you could tell us something about the value of this program to the theatres and to Ontario.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Ontario Hydro recognizes the importance of the performing arts organizations in our economy and our communities. As well, Ontario Hydro is aware of the pressures on many of these non-profit organizations. At the same time, we are seeing exciting new innovations with regard to performance lighting in these theatres, regarding both quality and energy efficiency. That is why Ontario Hydro created this program initiative, which is a matching grant program designed to cover between one third and two thirds of the cost of upgrading lighting systems at professional community-based and non-profit theatre organizations across Ontario.

Ms Bassett: The Tarragon Theatre of course is lucky to have been part of this initiative. By the way, since I have everybody's attention, they have the highly acclaimed show The Glass Menagerie there now that you can all go to. With the new Lighting Up Ontario, could you tell me what you need to do to participate in this program. Can other theatres get involved? What selection criteria did you use for the theatres you chose so that other theatres perhaps could line up and be part of it?

Hon Mr Sterling: Last year Ontario Hydro invited theatres from across Ontario to apply to this program and they had 43 applications. They also asked the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, the Canadian Centre for Business in the Community and the Council for Business and the Arts in Canada to look at all these applications and come up with those that would qualify the best. Twenty theatres were chosen: 13 this year and seven next. I'm pleased that the member for St Andrew-St Patrick was the recipient of one of the benefits of this particular program.

I believe Ontario Hydro, through its program, will be able to support Ontario's vibrant theatre industry and improve energy efficiency at the same time.

CHILD WELFARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. You've been the minister since last year and since that time we've had the death of a child who was in the care of the government of Ontario. Since that time the Ontario children's aid societies chose to do an investigation into why deaths of children under your watch were so alarmingly high. Minister, I'd like you to tell the House today, since last year, since you've been the minister, what have you done to address this issue?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Anybody who has ever been in the Ministry of Community and Social Services unfortunately gets to see some very tragic circumstances whenever a child dies, either in the care of their family or in the care of a children's aid society. No matter how good we think our systems are, they have to be better, because we do not want any child to be harmed or to die in any circumstance like this.

That's one of the reasons why the ministry has been so pleased to participate with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and the coroner's office in the task force that is taking a look at some of the child deaths that have occurred in the past, to find out if there are common links and to make recommendations as to what we can do to improve the support for those child welfare workers who are making those very difficult decisions.

Mrs Pupatello: It's very strange, because no one else thinks you participated in this study, but since you have announced today that you participated in this task force, it only stands to reason that you are going to implement the recommendations of your task force. In fact, when journalists asked you last week about your response, you didn't say how concerned you were about tragic events. You said, "It's bad judgement by the front-line workers." You took the opportunity to blame the staff at the front line for the deaths of children under your watch.

Minister, if you are admitting today that this is your task force, in fact it is your report, will you then confirm that you will be instituting all the recommendations of your report?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, I really wish she would check her facts. I did not blame child welfare workers out there who are making extremely difficult decisions. What they need from the government, what they need from the opposition is better support. The Toronto Sun

article did not quote me, and if you'd listened to Metro Morning, if you'd listened to CBC, if you'd listened to CFTO, you would know exactly what I said about the child welfare workers. They need support, Madam Member over there; they do not need politics from you.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Attorney General and minister responsible for native affairs with regard to the meeting notes dated September 5 of the interministerial committee, which are now public and which indicate that this government played a significant role in the events that led to the fatal shooting of Dudley George at Ipperwash.

Although the meeting notes make it clear that there had not been any discussions with the Stony Pointers by MNR or the OPP and it wasn't clear what their demands might be, although they were noted to be non-violent, they indicate that neither the government nor the OPP attempted to communicate with the occupiers of Ipperwash park, preceding the major police buildup and the shift in the role the police played from previous incidents which were ended peacefully.

It states, "The province will take steps to remove the occupiers ASAP." Is that why the OPP suddenly changed their long-standing historical approach in dealing with these disputes?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It's quite clear that the actions of the province were to take the steps to obtain a civil injunction, and that is exactly what the province did. The province took those steps and I believe appeared in court on September 7 to obtain a civil injunction. What the police did were simply matters that were left to the police. Commissioner O'Grady made it very clear that there was no political interference. Police made decisions, they made those decisions on their own and Commissioner O'Grady certainly confirmed that was the case.

Mr Wildman: It says clearly on page 3, under the heading "Next Steps," "The province will take steps to remove the occupiers ASAP. The OPP will have the discretion as to how to proceed with removing the Stony Pointers from the park" -- not whether to proceed, but how to proceed ASAP. The Premier stated on May 29, 1996, "There was absolutely no direction, as there ought not to be, from me or any of my staff to the OPP."

We now know that it's not true that this government didn't give any direction. As a matter of fact, it's right here in the notes that the OPP should proceed. That direction led to the fatal shooting of a man named Dudley George. Only a public inquiry can have the broad powers to deal with the chain of command to determine who made the decisions all the way up from the OPP in the field to the Premier's office. Will the minister now agree that this government must call a public inquiry as soon as possible into the events that led to the shooting of Dudley George?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I indicated and as has been confirmed by Commissioner O'Grady, the OPP had the discretion to deal with this matter as they normally would have had the discretion and indeed had the discretion in this case. There was no political interference; there was no political direction. The decision that was made on a political basis was to take a decision and direct that a civil injunction be prepared and proceeded with, and that is exactly what happened.

FARM RETAIL SALES TAX REBATES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. In last year's budget, in addition to cutting income taxes and cutting employer health tax, the government also demonstrated its commitment to the Ontario agricultural industry by announcing it would rebate the Ontario retail sales tax for commercial construction on farms throughout the province of Ontario. In doing so, it recognized the very central role that agriculture continues to play in the Ontario economy.

Last week, the minister made an important announcement at CalMar Farms in my constituency of Nepean. Could the minister explain to the House how the retail sales tax rebate program for commercial farmers will boost economic growth and job creation in the agricultural communities across Ontario?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Yes, this confirms the commitment that this government has to the food producers of this province. By rebating 8% retail sales tax on capital construction, it will give the farmers of this province the opportunity of being more efficient and to control their own destiny.

It will also give the construction industry a boost and will certainly bring a lot of real good, solid thinking through to the farmers of Ontario, that their government is 110% behind them. It recognizes the importance of this industry, second only to the car industry, and that we will be exporting from this province upwards of $10 billion by the turn of the century. Yes, the sales tax rebate is of utmost importance and it is a clear signal to Ontario's food producers that their government is with them.

Mr Baird: I know this program has been a real incentive to construction on farms in my riding and throughout Carleton county. New construction means new jobs and a strong agricultural industry means a strong Ontario economy. I understand that a considerable amount of money remains left in the fund. Could the minister update the House on the specific success to date of the program and on the anticipated demand for this program in the coming year?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: According to the latest statistics I have, the province has rebated about 1,000 applications for the sales tax, well over $2 million. There are 400 applications on file right now and, as you would all know, farmers are presently in the process of completing their income tax returns for last year and we expect a real rush of applications for rebate of the sales tax.

Certainly, by giving farmers time to plan -- we gave them more time this year because it was last Thursday that the extension was announced -- it gives them time to plan and make the arrangements before their very busy time of the year, which is next month, and we anticipate that this will indeed be a very productive and positive move in the area of food production.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. For almost two years now I have been urging you to keep your promise of no cuts to agriculture and you have accused me of fearmongering. Now a group of 36 Ontario farm organizations has banded together for the express purpose of opposing your government's cuts.

I have worked in agriculture all of my life and this is the first time I've seen this many groups united on a single issue. They are telling you that agriculture must not be cut further. It is your duty to send the message to your cabinet colleagues as you prepare for the provincial budget. Will you stand in your place today and give 110% and tell this House that you will not tolerate any further attacks on the agricultural budget?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank my colleague across the way for the question. Of course, he didn't mention that we just extended the provincial sales tax rebate, which will be another $20 million, and the Grow Ontario program, another $15 million. Those two parties promised to correct the farm tax rebate. I am proud to say that this government has corrected a serious inequity: yes, $171 million that farmers no longer have to pay and then wait for a rebate.

The Liberal government brought that in, in smoke and mirrors, back in the late 1980s, and tried to make it look like the Ministry of Agriculture's budget had gone up by well over $100 million, when what happened? It went from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs across the street to 801 Bay Street.

I am pleased to tell you that I met with the 36 representatives of the Ontario agrifood industry, listened to them, and I can tell you that they are quite happy with what --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Hoy: I don't believe that the farm organizations are that happy and you can't reannounce program after program and make it like you're doubling the money. It's $20 million and it's a one-time deal.

In at least one township I know of the council is granting up to 80 severances from farm land at a time. The mayor said that this is the only way they can make up for the provincial downloading. He says, "I know we're bending the rules a little, but what can we do?"

Your government is causing this and gives only vague suggestions as to how municipalities may be eligible to receive some funding through your limited restructuring funds, and that's not satisfactory. Will you commit to returning the funding dollar for dollar so that the municipalities do not have to pay for the dumped programs on the backs of rural Ontarians?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I'm not sure if the honourable member was at the ROMA convention, but I was very pleased at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention to tell them there's a $1-billion community reinvestment fund, a $1-billion renewal annually, along with a $1.5-billion special account for capital projects, operating and social services.

It's indeed somewhat frustrating when the honourable member attempts to try to belittle the fact that there will be a $1-billion renewal fund to assist not only in the moneys that will be taken away from rural municipalities but indeed to look after municipalities.

We have taken away $5.4 billion of educational costs from the tax bill --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

HIGHWAY FINANCING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Today, April 1, marks the day on which the province of Ontario is handing down to the municipalities across this province some 1,776 kilometres of highways. Municipalities across this province are upset. In Timmins they're so upset they've taken matters into their own hands.

They've tried to meet with ministry officials in order to say that this is a bad deal for the residents of the city of Timmins, as it is across the province, and to no avail; you, the minister, and your ministry have not responded to the concerns of the city of Timmins, as with every other community across this province. In fact, the city of Timmins had to erect signs on the highways this morning in and around the city of Timmins. I want to send you a copy. It says that Highway 101 --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, the member for Cochrane South. I appreciate it, but that is in fact a prop. Minister of Transportation.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): These past two years this government was saying all along that highways that no longer serve a purpose are going to be transferred to municipalities. I'd add that this is not an invention of the Harris government; as long as I can remember, this has been ongoing.

I want to reiterate that these transfers are going to be taking place with compensation attached to them, or the roads are going to be in the best condition they could possibly be. We are delivering those highways to municipalities that are serving strictly a municipal purpose.

Mr Bisson: To the Minister of Transportation, I really succinctly want to put to you that the highways you're transferring over --

Interjection.

The Speaker: It's his time you're wasting, member for Fort York.

Mr Bisson: The highways you're transferring over to the municipality of Timmins, like you are to all other municipalities, are not only municipal in significance; they are provincial highways. The municipalities don't have the money to be able to pay for them. In the city of Timmins, it means an extra $400,000 they've got to find from the municipal tax base to pay for these particular highways.

Minister, I ask you once again, will you please stop this download on to the municipalities of the province of Ontario and stop this attack on the taxpayers and keep the highways where they belong: with the province?

Hon Mr Palladini: We are not attacking any municipality. I'm just going to reiterate the same thing, that these highways that are being transferred no longer serve a provincial purpose; they are a municipal road.

Speaking of funding, if a municipality happens to be in the position that it supposedly can't afford to keep funding this highway, we have a $1-billion restructuring fund that municipalities can draw from. We are not doing things that shouldn't be done. As a matter of fact, we are doing what should be done in the best interests of all Ontarians.

LAND TRANSFER TAX REBATE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Finance. New home buyers are very pleased to learn that you've extended the program which refunds up to $1,725 of the land transfer tax for the first-time buyers on newly constructed homes. A home is the biggest purchase most of us make in our lives, and with the costs of real estate closing, moving and new appliances, a tax rebate of this size is very helpful. According to home builders, many first-time purchasers say the land transfer tax refund was the incentive they needed to buy a new home.

In my city of Mississauga 3,478 households purchased new homes during the first 11 months of this program. Our city is very proud of its new neighbourhoods and its infill housing. Minister, what has been the impact of the land transfer tax refund on housing affordability in Ontario?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The response to the land transfer tax rebate program announced in the budget last year was tremendous. Over 11,000 first-time home buyers in Ontario have taken advantage of this program. That amounts to over $13.5 million given to young families making a start in life. The amount they have saved from this program, the maximum being $1,725, could account for 17% of their downpayment or a major purchase of appliances such as five appliances. There's been a tremendous response to the program and that's why we decided to extend it for another year.

Mrs Marland: One of the biggest advantages of the land transfer tax rebate program is the boost it gives to employment in the construction industry and the retail sector. Minister, do you have any information on the economic growth and job creation that have resulted from this program and from other new policies of our government?

Hon Mr Eves: The construction of one single new home creates 2.8 years of employment in Ontario. In the province last year new housing starts were up 20.2%. In February alone, new home sales in Toronto were up 44.7% and up almost 60% -- 59.6% -- for the 1996 calendar year. Since August 1996 Ontario has led the way in construction jobs created in Canada. There have been 34,000 construction jobs created in Canada since August 1996, with 29,000 of them here in Ontario. I think members can readily see the tremendous economic impact this policy in housing starts has had in the province.

We are leading the way in Canada with respect to housing starts and construction jobs and we will continue to do so in the future.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I need to ask you once again about Veronica Manuel, a constituent of mine who is desperately trying to keep her severely disabled son Dylan at home. You will recall that Veronica appeared before the standing committee on social development a couple of months ago to tell her story, a story that shocked and upset all members of the committee, including the government members, a story of how the actions of this government have left her physically and financially exhausted and how her full-time job looking after Dylan has not been acknowledged by this government.

You've told me personally that you're very moved by the circumstances of Ms Manuel's case, yet neither you nor your officials have responded to her many letters, phone calls and pleas since her appearance before the committee. I have one more letter from Ms Manuel which I'd like to have a page deliver to you today. I'd like to ask you, and then I won't get a supplementary, two questions, if I can. Do you not think Ms Manuel, as a full-time caregiver, deserves a response from you and do you not think it is time that caregiver status should be acknowledged by your government and by yourself?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): To the honourable member, yes, for this particular individual the situation is quite tragic. We do recognize the financial and personal sacrifice parents are making to care for disabled children at home. It's one of the reasons we increased the spending on the special services at home program. Yes, we have gotten back to this particular individual to try and help solve the case. I'd be quite pleased to accept this recent letter and to see what more we can do to try and help this woman.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have a petition from over 500 organizations and women and it reads as follows:

"Women's declaration against the amalgamation and for local democracy:

"We, the undersigned women from all of Metro Toronto, demand that (1) the Ontario government cease all proceedings on Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, and recall its trustees; (2) withdraw all proposals to download costs of welfare, health and assisted housing.

"Because women work to create services that benefit our communities such as child care, recreation centres, settlement houses, health and safety programs and public education;

"Because we believe our communities are stronger when people care for those in need, regardless of their place of origin, and that all residents of Ontario should share this responsibility to care;

"Because women are as a group more dependent on community and social services, it is women who will suffer most from their loss;

"Because the added financial burden on municipalities will jeopardize existing and future services which women need: housing for low-income people; long-term care for the elderly; child care; public health services; environmental sustainability projects; projects to prevent violence; safe, affordable, convenient and dependable transit; employment equity programs; public education for the diverse needs of our community; urban design and planning policies which make our communities safer and more livable;

"Because local community institutions foster the participation and leadership of women in government;

"Because women fought for the right to vote and make decisions about our lives;

"Because there is no equality when others make important decisions for us;

"We therefore urge all women to: (1) oppose this amalgamation; (2) sign this declaration; (3) vote No."

I'm very pleased to add my signature.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I too have a petition with literally thousands of names, signed by women across the province. It reads:

"Women's declaration against amalgamation and for local democracy:

"We, the undersigned women from all of Metro Toronto, demand that the Ontario government (1) cease all proceedings on Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, and recall its trustees; (2) withdraw all proposals to download costs of welfare, health and assisted housing.

"Because women work to create services that benefit our community such as child care, recreation centres, settlement houses, health and safety programs, and good public education;

"Because we believe our communities are better when people care for those in need, regardless of their place of origin, and that all residents of Ontario should share this responsibility to care;

"Because women are as a group more dependent on community and social services, it is women who will suffer most from their loss;

"Because the added financial burden on municipalities will jeopardize existing and future services which women need: housing for low-income people; long-term care for the elderly; child care; public health services; environmental sustainability projects; programs to prevent violence; safe, affordable, convenient and dependable transit; employment equity programs; public education for the diverse needs of our community; urban design and planning policies which make our communities safer and more livable;

"Because local community institutions foster the participation and leadership of women in government;

"Because women fought for the right to vote and make decisions about our lives;

"Because there is no equality when others make important decisions for us;

"We therefore urge all women to (1) oppose this amalgamation; (2) sign this declaration; (3) vote No in local referendums."

This declaration is sponsored by the Women's Coalition for Local Democracy, including the City of Toronto Committee on the Status of Women, Women Plan Toronto and Older Women's Network. I sign my signature to this petition because I fully support it.

GEORGIAN WOOD ADDICTION CENTRE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that says:

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of the province of Ontario to heed the advice of the citizens, elected officials and planning bodies of our area and continue funding the Georgian Wood Addiction Centre as a multifunctional rural addiction treatment centre with a short-term residential program, and to continue its divestment to the North Simcoe Hospital Alliance, and to continue to work cooperatively with the new integrated service delivery system for this end of the centre region in north Simcoe."

This is from Orillia, Penetanguishene, Midland and Stayner and areas in north Simcoe, and I've signed my name to it.

ROUTE 17

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que des accidents surviennent sur une base régulière et qu'un rapport de la PPO de Rockland démontre que 23 accidents sérieux sont survenus au cours des huit derniers mois sur la route 17 entre Rockland et Orléans ;

«Attendu qu'une étude démontre que pas moins de 18 000 voitures circulent chaque jour sur cette portion de 20 kilomètres de la route 17 ;

«Attendu que la conception d'ébauches est complétée, des audiences publiques ont eu lieu et des parcelles de terrain ont été achetées ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Nous demandons au ministre des Transports, Al Palladini, de remettre sur sa liste de priorités le projet d'élargissement de la route 17 entre le chemin Trim et Clarence Point et nous demandons au gouvernement de mettre de côté les fonds nécessaires pour l'exécution de ce projet avant de remettre aux municipalités la responsabilité de la route 17.»

J'y ajoute ma signature.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 1,890 people from across Toronto:

"Whereas the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto have overwhelmingly voted against the amalgamation of the six municipalities into a megacity,

"We, the undersigned, call on the government to withdraw Bill 103 and stop plans to create a megacity."

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition against the megacity madness of this government. On top of this petition there is a big headline which says, "Stop the Megacity Madness." It's addressed to the Ontario Legislature. It reads:

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metro Toronto;

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods;

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services; and

"Whereas the Tories never proposed abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign,

"We, therefore, the undersigned residents of Ontario and Toronto, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

Since I agree with the sentiments, I'm putting my signature on the bottom.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition here from the Ontario Omnibus Alliance. There are 2,000 names. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the registered voters of the province of Ontario, expect the government we elect to lead our Legislature in a responsible and competent manner; and

"Whereas we expect the government we elect to be the government of all the people and to consult with the opposition and to respect the mandate given the government by the electorate; and

"Whereas the present government, led by Premier Mike Harris, has forced the passage of important legislation without adequate preparation, consultation and debate, and has exceeded the mandate given the government by the electorate, and has passed legislation, including Bill 26, that increases the power of the government to unduly intrude into the lives of the people and contradicts the values that define us as a compassionate, inclusive and just society, and has caused us to become more divided at a time when we should be overlooking our differences and coming together to find new ways of protecting and nurturing those values to which we all aspire; and

"Whereas we, the registered voters of the province of Ontario, for the reasons given above have lost all confidence in the leadership of Mike Harris;

"Then

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of the province of Ontario to remove Mike Harris from the position of Premier by whatever legal means, including his voluntary resignation, and to replace him at the earliest possible moment with a competent and responsible member of the provincial Parliament."

I affix my signature to that.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition in regard to Bill 104.

"Whereas Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, is a threat to our education system;

"Whereas the Education Improvement Commission has far-reaching and unprecedented powers;

"Whereas outsourcing of non-instructional jobs such as school secretaries, custodians, library technicians and educational assistants will result in chaos and poor service and limited savings, if any;

"We therefore petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 104, to limit the powers of the Education Improvement Commission and to guarantee successor rights for non-instructional jobs."

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence to the government in the province of Ontario."

That's signed by many people throughout the riding of Kenora, and I too have attached my signature to that petition.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We oppose the provisions provided for in Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, in which the Education Improvement Commission, which is an appointed, not an elected body, will conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the Minister of Education on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards.

"Bill 104 will adversely affect the quality of consistent support presently available to students in our schools. Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, in its present form is not acceptable to the citizens of Ontario."

This is signed by over 3,000 citizens from London and area, and I am proud to affix my signature.

GOVERNMENT AGENDA

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I'd like to present a petition to the Legislature signed by a number of people in the London area expressing a lack of confidence in the government.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of the province of Ontario."

It's signed by a great many Ontario citizens as well as constituents in my own riding, and I have affixed my signature in complete agreement.

MACASSA LODGE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is signed by 71 residents of the city of Hamilton and it reads as follows:

"We, the residents, friends and supporters of Macassa Lodge, urge and strongly request that the provincial government honour its commitment and reinstate the $8.5 million as its share towards the final phase of renovations at Macassa Lodge."

As I understand it, our government provided money, and construction occurred at Macassa Lodge. Then this Conservative government, which promised no cuts to health care, indeed cancelled the final phase at a cost of $8.5 million. The seniors are particularly concerned about this, and I am pleased that Chris Charlton, who is our federal candidate in that area, has gathered the petitions and asked me to present them here. I agree with the petitioners.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On February 19, 1997, in remarks that I made directed to the second reading debate of the police services bill, Bill 105, I referred to the Mr Justice Campbell report of the policing into the Bernardo matter, using some rather intemperate language, I must say, upon reflection. I referred to the Niagara Regional Police in that debate on Wednesday, February 19, 1997, as "that bloody police force." Those remarks, upon reflection, I deem to be inappropriate. I withdraw them and apologize for any upset they might have caused.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk Assistant and Executive Director of Legislative Services (Ms Deborah Deller): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 103,

An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated January 29, 1997, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on social development and move its adoption.

Clerk Assistant and Executive Director of Legislative Services (Ms Deborah Deller): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 104,

An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated February 6, 1997, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

OPPOSITION DAY

GOVERNMENT AGENDA

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is an opposition day and this is the opposition resolution:

Whereas the Harris Conservative government is refusing to listen to the voices of citizens in East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York who have clearly rejected the Harris government's megacity proposal in Bill 103; and

Whereas the Harris Conservative government has ignored the concerns expressed by parents and educators about the grab for central control of schools in Bill 104; and

Whereas the Harris Conservative government, by appointing trustees to oversee actions of elected municipal councils before final passage of Bill 103, has shown no regard for the role of the Legislative Assembly; and

Whereas the Harris Conservative government, by appointing committee vice-chairs with powers over elected school boards before final passage of Bill 104, has shown no regard for the authority of the Legislative Assembly; and

Whereas the Harris Conservative government is taking control of schools away from elected local school board members so that it can cut education spending to fund its tax cut scheme; and

Whereas the Harris Conservative government, while slashing $1.3 billion from Ontario hospitals, is ordering hospitals closed before ensuring that community services are in place to meet health care needs; and

Whereas the Harris Conservative government is downloading the costs of welfare, long-term care, public health, housing, public transit, libraries, police, child care, ambulance services and other social services to find money to pay for its tax cut scheme;

Whereas the Harris Conservative government, instead of seeking real input for its proposals, has spent millions of taxpayers' dollars on slick advertising campaigns intended to shore up sagging Tory support; and

Whereas the Harris Conservative government set the tone for its bully tactics by passing the anti-worker Bill 7 without a single minute of public hearings, then trying to ram the omnibus Bill 26 through the Legislative Assembly without listening to the province-wide concerns;

Therefore this House calls on the government to withdraw Bill 103 and Bill 104; to make a new start on reforming municipal and education governance in Ontario; to stop cutting base funding of hospitals; to allow communities to determine how to restructure their hospital services and ensure that community services are in place before hospitals are closed; to embrace a process that gives all citizens a chance to have their voices heard; and to reverse the decision to download social service costs on to municipal taxpayers. Premier of Ontario.

To be debated Tuesday, April 1, 1997.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Hampton moves opposition day number 4:

Whereas the Harris Conservative government is refusing to listen to the voices of citizens in East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York who have clearly rejected the Harris government's megacity proposal in Bill 103 --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Dispense.

The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker doesn't have to dispense, but I will dispense. He doesn't have to, but I will dispense.

Mr Hampton: I'm pleased to lead off debate on this opposition day resolution because it's really one of the few opportunities we've had to bring all of these issues together and bring them together in a way which people across this province can begin to understand.

The government wants to say, for example, on the health care front that it is restructuring health care. The fact of the matter is that it is doing something quite different: It is cutting health care. It has cut $800 million out of hospital budgets already, which has forced the layoff of literally thousands of nurses and health care workers across this province. It is going to cut more than a further $400 million out of hospital budgets next year. Meanwhile, it is closing not five, not 10, but literally dozens of hospitals across this province, but it is not putting in place any community alternatives to the services that used to be obtained in those hospitals.

On the education front, the government is trying to say to people that its education agenda is all about waste and inefficiency, but in fact what we're seeing is that $1.2 billion has already been taken out of education, which has severely hurt adult education, which has severely hurt early childhood education, which has forced all kinds of cuts in the classroom, and the government has an agenda to take a further $1.5 billion out of education.

Finally, we're now seeing the downloading, and in Toronto the megacity and downloading, agenda. That agenda is all about forcing down on to municipalities over $1.5 billion in health care costs and costs for social assistance and costs for things like child care, policing, seniors' housing, homes for the aged, public health and so on.

Where is all this money going? Where is the more than $2 billion that's going to be taken out of health care going to go? Where is the more than $2 billion that's being taken out of education going to go? Where is the more than $1.5 billion that's going to be forced on to municipalities going to go? It's going to go to finance this government's tax scheme, which is overwhelmingly going to benefit the wealthiest people in this province. Any economist worth her or his salt will tell you that if you simply do the numbers on this government's income tax scheme, two thirds of the benefits of their income tax scheme are going to go to the 10% who are at the very top of the income ladder.

So people like Matthew Barrett at the Bank of Montreal, who receives $3.9 million a year in compensation from the bank, is going to get a huge gift from the Harris government, a huge gift. The Premier's dear friend Mr Stronach at Magna International, whose total compensation is in the neighbourhood of $48 million a year, is going to get a huge gift from this government.

The reality is this: We're going to see across Ontario holes and cracks cut in our health care system by this Conservative government, our education system turned upside down and inside out by this government and holes and cracks cut in our communities in order that this government can give a large tax benefit to the wealthiest people in this province.

This government is prepared to sacrifice our health care system, prepared to sacrifice our system of education, prepared to sacrifice our communities, which have been the foundation of our economic productivity and our social stability. This government is prepared to sacrifice all those things, cut holes and cracks in all of those things, in order that they can give the wealthiest people in this province a tax gift.

That is what is really happening here. We wanted this opposition day, on the eve of this government's steamrolling some of its legislation through the House, to bring focus to what is really happening, to bring focus to the fact that we're undermining our education system so that this government can give its wealthy friends a tax cut.

Who wins and who loses here? Obviously our health care system loses, our education system loses, our communities lose. But what's more, all of Ontario eventually loses in this. All of Ontario loses because the fact of the matter is that the system of education we've built in this province has been the foundation of much of our economic productivity, has been the foundation of much of the social stability that contributes to that economic productivity.

Even the Premier says it when he goes abroad. When he goes to France or Germany or Switzerland he says to them: "Ontario has got an excellent education system, a well-trained workforce. That's why you ought to come to Ontario and invest." Yet here, now in this Legislature we see a government that is prepared to sacrifice the long-term success of our system of education to satisfy their short-term political agenda, which is to give their wealthy friends a tax gift.

What happens when we cut holes and cracks in our communities? What happens is this: Communities that have been very successful, communities that have generated social solidarity, communities that have been productive collectively since the end of the Second World War and which have allowed all of us to be more productive individually start to crack and crumble. When that starts to happen, our capacity to be productive, our capacity to have that social cohesion, that social stability we will especially need as we enter the 21st-century economy, we start to lose.

I would say in a very general sense that to have a productive population, you have to have a healthy population. That is something we can be very proud of, something we have achieved especially in the last 50 years: very good general rates of health and healthful living in this province. A healthy population, a healthy workforce has been a productive workforce. But this government is even prepared to cut holes and cracks in that in order to satisfy their short-term political agenda. Again, that short-term political agenda is to give a large tax gift to people in this province who are already very wealthy.

We are opposed to this. For all kinds of reasons we are opposed to this. For all kinds of reasons we believe this is exactly the wrong way to go, that this is quite counterproductive, that making people who are already very wealthy even wealthier gets us nowhere in the long run, contributes nothing in a positive way to Ontario in the long run. What we're seeing is Robin Hood in reverse: taking from communities, taking from ordinary families, taking from people who are already not well off in order to give to those who are very well off. This is quite counterproductive.

We're quite opposed to this, but what's more, we know this is not going to work. We know, for example, that the megacity bill, Bill 103, and the attendant downloading, $531 million within the boundaries of Toronto alone, is not going to work; that it is not going to create a situation which will make Toronto a strong city, which will make Toronto the kind of urban environment where people want to continue to invest, where people want to continue to work, where people want to continue to live. In fact, Bill 103 is going to create quite an unworkable scenario.

I want to say to the government here and now that you will be the government for a very short time. You will not be around for a long time. You will be the government for a short time. With some good fortune and hard work, we will become the government of this province again. When we do that, we will revoke Bill 103, we will do away with Bill 103, and we will sit down and do the work that really needs to be done in terms of the problem of urban governance in the greater Toronto area, in terms of the problems of urban sprawl, in terms of the problems of economic coordination.

We will create again urban structures that work for people, local urban government structures that work for people, that allow people to engage in a debate and dialogue with government, urban government structures that provide for responsible government and for responsive government.

What you're doing here, this huge project in social engineering in terms of Bill 103 and the downloading, is not going to work