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

November 26, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L128 - Tue 26 Nov 1996 / Mar 26 Nov 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ULIANA BADIALI

EDUCATION FINANCING

NAPANEE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

ANITA LARKIN

HIGHWAY INSPECTORS

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

OSTEOPOROSIS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

VISITOR

HEALTH CARE REFORM

HOSPITAL FINANCING

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

VISITOR

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

TAX REDUCTION

EDUCATION REFORM

WORKFARE

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PETITIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION

SCHIZOPHRENIA

TAX REDUCTION

PAROLE SYSTEM

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PAROLE SYSTEM

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

SCHOOL BOARDS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IMPAIRED DRIVING), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUITE AVEC FACULTÉS AFFAIBLIES)

FRANCHISES' ARBITRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ARBITRAGES VISANT DES FRANCHISES

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS D'ALIMENTS

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ULIANA BADIALI

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): This evening, the Lieutenant Governor will be presenting the government of Ontario's Senior Achievement Awards. It is my privilege to rise and pay tribute to one of the recipients, Mrs Uliana Badiali, a resident of my riding of Yorkview. I was indeed honoured to nominate Mrs Badiali for the esteemed award. Her vital contribution to our local community has spanned a lifetime of dedication and sacrifice for others.

Uliana Badiali is a very special and exceptional senior citizen. Through her good deeds, she has continuously exemplified for new immigrants to our province what it means to become part of a caring community. It is significant that in spite of her own personal hardships and difficulties, she always found the energy and tenacity to extend a helping hand to others.

Among the countless beneficiaries of Mrs Badiali's earnest kindness and benevolence are the unemployed, the destitute, the homeless, the hungry, the disabled, the illiterate and the sick, and the list goes on and on.

Being Uliana Badiali means having the perseverance and the spirit to take on any challenge, no matter how insurmountable, on behalf of the less fortunate and those unable to fend for themselves. Being Uliana Badiali means having the compassion to be a good Samaritan to those who have little hope. Being Uliana Badiali unquestionably symbolizes what it means to be a volunteer in Ontario.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): People throughout the province are realizing more and more what this government's cuts to education are doing to our school system. On Saturday I had the opportunity to attend part of a conference in Brampton set up by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Canadian Auto Workers. The 125 or so parents, students and teachers who were there understood and understand that when this government alleges that we are overspending here in Ontario relative to other provinces, those numbers are greatly exaggerated.

They understand that what is driving the actions of this Minister of Education and Training is just cuts to education, an attempt to privatize the system piece by piece and an attempt to disembowel the very existence of our school system.

Tomorrow in my riding and throughout the province I know that we will have parents come to constituency offices of members of this Legislature to again make the point that they, as parents, are seeing what these cuts are doing, that they see the inconsistency of the Premier of the province praising our school system abroad at the same time as the Minister of Education and Training is tearing it apart here at home, that in fact he has created the crisis that he wanted to create and is now implementing that crisis by tearing away the very fabric of our school system.

They understand the agenda, they oppose that agenda, and this government will rue the day that it began on this agenda to devastate our school system.

NAPANEE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On Tuesday, November 12, I attended the sixth annual Napanee Business Improvement Association banquet and awards dinner. I rise today to make my fellow members aware of the contribution the BIA has made to the community of Napanee and surrounding area by encouraging local shopping.

Like other BIAs across the province, the Napanee BIA was founded 15 years ago to finance improvements to the downtown streets of Napanee. At that time a debenture was issued to pay for the street improvements. Although the debenture was recently retired by funds raised through taxes on businesses, the BIA continues to support and promote downtown business interests.

At the banquet, awards were given to three businesspersons in recognition of their contribution to the local business community: Byron Perry of Perry's Shell station, Pam Oliver of Napanee Florists, and Mark Daines of the Richelieu and Paisley hotels. All are to be congratulated for their efforts in improving the business area for Napanee.

Apart from being an awards banquet, the evening raised money for this year's Salvation Army Christmas collection. I'm happy to announce that over $2,600 was raised through generous contributions by local merchants.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have here over 150 letters addressed to the Minister of Education and Training from the students of Stephen Leacock high school. I'm sure that by now the Minister of Education and Training has received thousands of letters from concerned parents, teachers and students.

These letters by students express a level of cynicism and anger that is alarming. I would suggest that the minister carefully read these letters. There is something underlined in almost every letter in this particular bundle. That tells you the degree of anger from these students. Let me read a part of what Khai Woo's letter says. She's a grade 12 student.

"I feel strongly against your education reform plan. I feel that your reform plan will devastate the great education system in Ontario. Regarding the Metro property tax money taken out of Metro, haven't you taken enough? Have we not suffered enough? I, along with my other classmates, have felt the cuts. My school is bad enough as it is with the cuts, and we can't take much more of this. What is to become of education in Ontario? The children are our future. We should teach them well and lead the way. Right now, the future looks fairly bleak. I feel that I'm saying this not just for myself but for all the other students in Ontario as well."

To paraphrase another student who wrote to you, when you are zealously cutting costs in your effort to find money for the tax cut, remember: Education is an investment, not a cost.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to direct my statement today to the Minister of Education and Training. Last Saturday the Ministry of Education and Training published an ad in newspapers across the province stating, "The government of Ontario is committed to improving the quality of education for every student in this province." Who do you think you're fooling? With a $1-billion cut to education funding and an additional $600 million to come, how can you pretend to be committed to the quality of education?

One of the negative results of the cuts that have already been made is that a large number of public school boards have discontinued their junior kindergarten programs.

Another way in which school boards have had to deal with the cuts is by cancelling adult education day school programs. Adults can no longer return to complete their high school education or upgrade, which is actually another odd move for this government since adult education is one of the most effective tools for getting people off welfare.

Yesterday I was presented with letters from students at La Cité de Jeunes in Kapuskasing who are very concerned about the proposed elimination of physical and health education in high schools. These students did a lot of research on the issue and on the negative impact that the elimination of these programs would have on all teenagers. I most certainly hope you will read their letters very carefully and take into consideration their position when you make your decision. These students did their homework and it's time for you to do yours.

I'd just like to read off some of the comments. "We, the students of Cité des Jeunes Secondary School in Kapuskasing, are concerned about the cuts that you, the Minister of Education, John Snobelen, are planning to make to this system and -- "

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

ANITA LARKIN

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I would like to take this opportunity to tell my honourable colleagues about Anita Larkin, a grade 8 student at St Theresa school in the town of Whitby in the fine riding of Durham Centre.

This dedicated young person has won the first annual Patricia A. Curran Award as school safety patroller of the year, an award given out by the Canadian Automobile Association of central Ontario. The award is named in honour of Patricia Curran, who retired last year as CAA's central Ontario manager of public relations after 33 years of service to the auto club. One of her primary interests has always been children's safety.

In addition to a trophy, which will be displayed at the recipient's home until next year, Anita receives a personal plaque and a cheque for $500.

The teacher who nominated Anita called her an "invaluable, dedicated, conscientious and reliable bus patroller." Along with her regular duties, Anita is responsible for picking up the kindergarten students at their room at day's end, she brings them to the bus and ensures they board safely.

I know my colleagues in the House today will join me in congratulating Anita Larkin on a job well done as school safety patroller of the year.

HIGHWAY INSPECTORS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Every day the revolutionary Harris government embarks upon a new course of action designed to destroy and dismantle services for the people of Ontario in general and the people of Niagara region in particular. With the announcement that the government will eliminate 600 inspectors in the Ministry of Transportation, jobs will be lost, possibly some of them in St Catharines, and an independent service will disappear.

Highway construction firms will be the only winners. The government is asking them to set their own standards and inspect their own work. If they're a little lax and the highway falls apart in five years instead of 10, then it's more repair work for the company.

For citizens who depend on the highway to get around, it's bad news on all fronts. There's a real incentive for constructors and contractors to cut corners, producing more profits now and more work in the future. It's going to cost a lot more money in the long run.

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

The efficiency of the process has been enhanced as well by the intervention of competent, concerned employees in various worker adviser offices. I call upon the government to keep the office open in Thorold and to enhance its service.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Could I ask the government members particularly to come to order. It's very difficult to hear the statements as they are. I'm not looking at anyone in particular; I'm just looking at the mass. Thank you.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to raise with the members of the assembly concerns that have been expressed in a letter to me by Kimberlee Starzynski from the Echo Bay area in my constituency about the family support plan. Ms Starzynski says that the plan was intended in part to enforce court orders against deadbeat dads. She asks, "Who is going to enforce the same orders against the deadbeat government?"

She points out that she has not received her support cheque, although the moneys have been directed from her ex-husband's employer. Her payment is due on the 1st of every month. Apparently the government can pay whenever it gets around to it.

Ms Starzynski's creditors expect payment of their accounts immediately. She wants to know who is going to pay the interest that she is charged on her accounts when she can't make the payments promptly due to the government's lack of efficiency.

The money she's receiving is not petty cash. She needs the money for the survival of herself and her children. She wants to know where the money goes when it leaves her ex-husband's place of employment, how much money is being earned by the government on interest collected from funds paid by support payors which have not been paid to the receivers, how much interest is being paid to the government. She'd like to know when she will be reimbursed for this interest and when her bad credit rating will be put right by this government.

OSTEOPOROSIS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Osteoporosis is a major public health problem. Osteoporosis affects 1.4 million Canadians over the age of 50, one in four women and one in eight men. Another two million Canadians are at risk of developing the disease. The risk of developing osteoporosis increases with age and is higher in women than in men and in whites than in blacks. It is caused by bone loss. Either a person has developed thinner, weaker bones during youth or he or she has lost a lot of bone in later life. It is estimated that the national cost of treating fractures exceeds $600 million per year. These costs are expected to increase dramatically as the baby-boomer population ages.

There is no cure for osteoporosis; however, in most cases it can be treated. Prevention is the most effective way of halting the disease. Strategies include ensuring oestrogen replacement, adequate nutrition including calcium intake and programs of modest weight-bearing exercise. There is a great deal of additional research on understanding the biology of human bone, defining individuals at special risk and developing safe, effective, low-cost strategies for fracture prevention.

I was happy last year to participate with the other women in all caucuses in the osteoporosis bus when it visited the Legislature and a number of my colleagues and I were tested.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand before you today to recognize 19 outstanding Ontarians, 19 Ontarians who exemplify the qualities of generosity, goodwill and community spirit, 19 Ontarians who bring to this province abundant energy, varied experiences, and whose roots span the entire globe, 19 Ontarians who have selflessly shared their wisdom and talents for the betterment of their communities.

I'm speaking about the 19 individuals who will be recognized this evening at the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards. Since the first awards in 1986, more than 200 seniors have been honoured for their contribution to the areas of community service, education, science, the arts, recreation, preservation of history, volunteerism and humanitarian activities. Each of these people is a gift to all of us and each dispels any myth that suggests that seniors are too old or too frail to contribute to their society.

It's a pleasure to announce this year's recipients: Ali Mire Awale and Charles Cheng of North York; Margaret Cahoon of Belleville; Janet Churchill of Elliot Lake; Margaret Harche of Sudbury; Uliani Badiali, Natalie Komarnycky, Mohinder Singh and Winnie Sung of Toronto; Lillian Kehl of Kitchener; Dolores Cavallero and Dr Arthur Gosselin of Ottawa; Jacob Kutz of St Catharines; Ronald Peters of Inverary; Ruth Redmond of Niagara Falls; Willis Rounding of Deep River; Angelique vander Duim of Oshawa; Irene Wilkins of Petrolia; and Frances Eva Maracle of Tyendinaga Territory.

Mrs Maracle, by the way, is 100 years old and still an active church volunteer, a chorus member and a gifted potter on the Tyendinaga reserve near Picton, Ontario.

When you see this kind of energy and this kind of commitment from people of any generation, let alone someone whose values were grounded in the days of premiers Oliver Mowat and James Whitney, you cannot help but be inspired.

As one of the nominators said about certain of these recipients, "If you put a dozen people of this calibre in a room together, the world's problems would be solved by the end of the day," and I don't doubt this for a moment.

Mr Speaker, I invite you and all of my colleagues in the House to join the Honourable Henry Jackman, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and myself in a ceremony this evening to recognize these special Ontarians. They are indeed an extraordinary group of Ontario citizens and we are very proud of them all.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Later this afternoon I will introduce a new Workers' Compensation Act, the first time a new act has been introduced since 1914.

The new act provides a balanced approach to reform by preserving fair and secure benefits for injured workers while at the same time restoring the financial viability of the Workers' Compensation Board. Our reforms achieve the government's goal of a fully funded system that is sensitive to the needs of injured workers and sustainable by the employers who fund the system and provide the jobs.

We inherited a workers' compensation system with many problems. Its unfunded liability at $10.7 billion is three times greater than the unfunded liabilities of all the other provincial WCBs combined.

We have a system where we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on programs to return injured workers to work with absolutely little or nothing to show for it. We have a system that has become so bureaucratic and time-consuming that it fails to meet the needs of either the employee or the employer. At the same time, the system has never adequately focused on preventing workplace injury and illness, nor on doing the job it should to get people get back to their jobs in a safe and timely manner.

This bill is the last in a series of steps that we are taking to address this serious situation. Our legislation today is based on five principles:

First, our reforms will restore the financial viability of the workers' compensation system by adopting a series of balanced measures that will retire the unfunded liability of $10.7 billion by the year 2014. In keeping with trends in other provinces, such as Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick, benefit levels will be reduced from 90% to 85% of net average pre-injury earnings. To ensure that the system remains fair and compassionate, workers who are 100% disabled and the survivors of deceased workers will retain full inflation protection.

Continuing the approach adopted by the NDP government, the formula to calculate inflation protection for other workers is being modified. As well, to ensure that all employers in this province pay their fair share, we are strengthening and including provisions within the act to enable the board to collect outstanding workers' compensation debts from employers.

Second, the reforms are going to refocus the system as an insurance plan for workplace illness and injury that pays benefits for injuries and illness caused by work. The network of agencies serving the workplace parties will be restructured in order that we have a more coordinated system. This will include the integration of the Occupational Disease Panel into the board to more effectively focus our efforts to do more in the way of research.

Third, and this personally is going to be the top priority for the board, this bill for the first time entrenches the goal of prevention of workplace illness and injury in the workers' compensation system, which was never there before.

Fourth, the bill will improve return to work in a safe and timely manner by requiring the workers, the employers and the board to cooperate.

Fifth, the changes will enhance self-reliance by obliging workers and employers to cooperate in preventing injuries and in managing the consequences of the injuries when they do happen.

To reinforce the new emphasis on prevention and on return to work, and to affirm the return of the board to its original role as an insurance provider, the name of the board will be changed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

Our new Workers' Compensation Act will promote economic growth and job creation in Ontario by reducing the human, the social and the economic cost of workplace injury and illness. Our goal simply is to turn the Workers' Compensation Board into a leading-edge institution in the delivery of workplace insurance, and we want to make sure that Ontario workplaces are among the safest in the world.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): We welcome the opportunity to begin the discussion of changes to workers' compensation, as our party welcomes the opportunity to make the board function more efficiently and effectively for injured workers. Anybody who would advocate the status quo I don't believe understands or appreciates the difficulties injured workers have in dealing with the board.

But what's troubling about the minister's statement and the minister's legislation is that this has nothing to do with meaningful reform of the board and everything to do with cutting benefits to injured workers and the most vulnerable people in this province.

This legislation will not improve the lives of injured workers; it will set them back. It will set their purchasing power back 60% in three years' time. It will make it harder for them to support their families, to pay their mortgages.

We're not surprised the minister had to change the name of the WCB because WCB couldn't possibly stand for Workers' Compensation Board; it stands for Witmer cuts benefits. That's what this is all about. It's about giving money back to employers at the expense of injured workers. It's about $6 billion from those poor and vulnerable people in this province going to a number of employers who don't even have good health and safety records. It's not about helping people; it's about setting this province back. It's not about meaningful reform; it's about hurting the most vulnerable.

We welcome the opportunity to debate WCB reform and we will put forward a number of amendments to this bill which will make it serve injured workers better, which will make it more equitable, which will make it financed and funded in a better way.

We can't be surprised by this initiative. We've known for some time that the government's intention was to take money from injured workers and put it back into employers' pockets. We're not surprised because this government has taken money from the poorest welfare recipients to give back to the wealthiest in the form of a tax cut. This government has cut funding to hospitals, to our seniors, who need that the most. This government has cut funding to education. This government does not have at its heart the interests of average Ontarians; it has at its heart a mean-spirited agenda that hurts the poorest and most vulnerable and helps those who need it the least.

So we will challenge the government on its assumptions, on its misstatements. We will fight to ensure that the billions of dollars you're taking out of injured workers' pockets get put back into their pockets so that their standard of living is not decreased over the coming few years. This is not about reform of the board; this is about who pays. This is about reallocating. This is not about fairness or equity. This isn't about balance.

This is about an agenda that's driven by an ideology that's not working and this is about a government whose agenda is designed to attack the poor and the vulnerable, the weakest in our society, without any kind of meaningful or substantial progress to the future.

We look forward to debating this issue. We look forward to standing up with injured workers. We look forward to fighting this agenda and we look forward to you meeting your fate in the next election, because you will. You can't keep doing this to people. You've got to start standing up for people.

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am delighted to join the minister, my colleagues here and all my colleagues, as a matter of fact, to give recognition to our seniors who are receiving the award this evening.

I believe every citizen in Ontario should be entitled to receive and be recognized such as the 19 members. If the minister is willing to recognize the achievements that the seniors are making, the contribution that our seniors are making to our province, to the rest of our people, then I think the government should pay more attention to what they are doing to our seniors. Let me say that the seniors may forgive, but ultimately they may not forget. They will remember the hardships that the government is imposing upon the seniors.

These are the things we should also keep in mind when we recognize a group of seniors as to their lifelong experience, the time they dedicate unselfishly to other seniors and the rest of our community. That's not the only time that we should be recognizing the seniors. They should be recognized throughout the year, every day, every time, and should not continue to have hardships imposed on them such as the $40 that now they will have to pay whenever they have to stay longer in a hospital bed. So while I do congratulate --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Responses, third party.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): First of all, to respond to the junior minister who had comments about seniors, let me say that our caucus shares in congratulating and acknowledging those seniors who are being awarded the designations that the minister talked about today.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): But moving to the issue of the WCB, I am certain the very seniors that the minister talked about today would not in any way support or condone this government's attack on injured workers the way they have today, and a lot of those injured workers are seniors, Minister. While I'm on my feet talking about you, let's not forget that you, Minister Jackson, you've got your fingerprints all over this thing too and you've got to wear this as much as Minister Witmer and everybody else in that cabinet.

And wear it you will, because as far as the workers of this province are concerned, November 26, 1996, is a day that will go down in infamy. It's the day this government chose to knowingly launch their legislative attack on injured workers in Ontario. I can't think of anything more despicable than an attack of that sort on the most vulnerable in our province.

First of all, I want to get the message out to thank very directly all the health and safety and WCB activists who have been working hard educating workers, and I'm talking very directly to you. I want to thank you for the work you've done, because we've now got a commitment from this government that there will be province-wide public hearings. That was the first goal, to make sure they couldn't run and hide. You've done that and now we've got a chance to throw some light on what this government is going to do to workers and we can get the message out that this is nothing but an attack on injured workers so that you, Minister, can give your friends a $6-billion gift.

This government, I'm sure, will spend a lot of time trying to compare what they're doing to the changes we made when we were the government in the last Parliament of this province. Let me say very directly that first of all, we did not give any money back to employers. There were no gifts like you're doing, taking $15 billion out of the pockets of injured workers and giving $6 billion back to employers -- nothing but legislated theft from the most vulnerable workers in our province, those being the injured workers of this province. That's what you're doing.

When we passed our legislation, we helped out 45,000 of the most vulnerable injured workers. We gave them a $200-a-month increase in their money and we made sure it was 100% inflation protected. We did things that helped people who are on workers' compensation, unlike you, who have done absolutely nothing that helps injured workers. You're reducing what they're going to get from 90% to 85%, eliminating the chronic claim which will be limited to the usual healing time, whatever the hell that means. It's another way to restrict the amount of money and benefits workers can get. You're going to eliminate chronic mental stress. All these things are meant to pay for your free gift to your friends.

Let's remember, this is in the context of a government that's already got a litany of things they've done to attack workers. What are they? You killed the royal commission into the WCB. Then you eliminated the right of workers to have a 50% say in how the WCB is operated. That's already done and gone. You've gutted training to health and safety in the province. You've killed the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. You've cut money and they've had to lay off workers at the Workers' Health and Safety Centre. You're cutting money and gutting the office of the worker adviser.

You brought in Bill 7, which made scabs legal again. You took away the successor rights to public sector workers, which caused strikes and blood on the streets. That's what you've done. Then you took away rights until Bill 49, the Employment Standards Act.

Yet, Minister, you have the audacity to stand in your place day after day and say that you're trying to bring fairness and balance to the workplace. All you're doing is taking away workers' rights and you seem to think you're going to be able to do this and they're going to lie down and take it. Well, let me tell you something, Minister, you've got one hell of a shock coming when we get out in the public and we start talking about this WCB. You watch what workers are going to say to you when you attack the most vulnerable injured workers in the province. You are not going to do that without a fight, and the fight starts today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I read into the record a number of strikes where scabs are being used across the province. These are all part of the public record. The Ministry of Labour has a record of these strikes. The Minister of Labour got up and accused me of deliberately distorting the facts. You later ruled that out of order, Speaker. I believe the Minister of Labour should withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I appreciate what you're saying, to the leader of the third party. I ruled it out of order because clearly I didn't at the time. Having reflected upon it, it was a mistake; I should have ruled it out of order and I apologize to the Legislature for it.

Having said that, I understand the minister in fact said that yesterday. There were a number of people who said it afterwards. I can ask only that from now, this point, in future it not be used. With all due respect, all I can offer the members is, upon reflection, I apologize for not ruling it out of order yesterday.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Minister of Labour, get up and withdraw.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood: Well, she won't withdraw. She can get up on her feet and withdraw.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane North, there's no one at fault but me. Again, I apologize for not ruling it out of order. On reflection, I should have. It was used a number of times and I can only offer my apologies. It was my fault.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in a question to the Ministry of the Attorney General, I accused the Attorney General of deliberately distorting the facts. I would like at this point to withdraw that as it is out of order, and a class Minister of Labour would do the same thing.

The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine, thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Once again this government has decided to attack the most vulnerable people in our society. After cutting the poor, the disadvantaged, the elderly, today you're declaring war on injured workers.

To the Minister of Labour, I want to ask you, do you really believe that this type of cuts to benefits coupled with a cut to assessments is in the interests of injured workers? Do you really believe that it's fair and balanced? Do you really think that the changes you're making today will make their lives any better? It's our view that not only are you not improving the board but you're setting back the board, or the new agency. Minister, could you outline for me today what other steps you're prepared to take to help injured workers and not hurt them.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the member opposite, I appreciate that you haven't had the opportunity to take a look at the new legislation. As I indicated to you, we have introduced today a bill which is totally different from the 1914 version. You will see a bill that now has as its focus, at the front of the legislation, a totally new emphasis and priority on the prevention of injury and illness.

That's how this legislation is different. Up until now we have simply allowed injury and illness to occur in this province. I indicate to you that I'm not happy with the number of fatalities; I'm not happy with the number of critical injuries that are reported to the Ministry of Labour. We have been working diligently, since we were elected, to improve the health and safety record. We are trying to coordinate activities. The key difference is that the focus has been shifted to prevention, followed by return to work.

Mr Duncan: Minister, I had a chance to review the bill. I reviewed the Jackson report. I reviewed the cabinet submission. The simple fact remains that you're doing nothing about prevention, you're doing nothing to improve the lot of injured workers. In fact, you cut 25% from the health and safety division of your ministry. You're suggesting today the largest cut to injured workers we've seen since the NDP cut their inflation protection some three years ago. This is the largest one since the NDP attacked injured workers three years ago.

Minister, the estimated cost, according to your own figures, of the cut in WCB assessments is $6 billion. You are taking money out of the pockets of injured workers and the most vulnerable people to make up that cut. How can you justify to those injured workers, particularly unorganized workers, pensioners, the people who are going to be affected the most, that you can give a $6-billion cut on the one hand and take $6 billion from them in the interest of dealing with the unfunded liability? Don't you see the contradiction?

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member opposite, I know you haven't had a chance to read the bill, because there simply has not been time. I would just bring you back to the point I made: We want to prevent people from being injured in the first place. We want to ensure that we improve the quality of life for people in this province, so our focus is going to be on prevention. That's why we've integrated the activities of the agency into the board. That's why we're going to overhaul the board and we're going to put a senior executive in charge of prevention. We've never done that before.

If you're satisfied to continue to see the high numbers for fatalities and injuries, I'm not. I repeat again that our focus is on prevention. Our focus is on preserving the benefits for the injured workers; we have not lowered them to the extent they have in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick. You know that the changes have been fair.

Mr Duncan: With all due respect, you've done nothing to prevent injury or illness in the workplace except cut the very tools you need to prevent them. You've done nothing, effectively, to address that issue. The only thing you've done effectively is cut benefits. You've cut benefits to the most vulnerable. You've cut benefits to pensioners. You've cut their ability to improve their standard of living. You've cut their ability to maintain their standard of living.

How can you justify this when you're giving away $6 billion in assessments, some of which will go to employers who have absolutely horrible health and safety records? How can you justify it when you've cut, cut, cut health and safety protection for injured workers in this province? How can you justify it, Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let's move to the second area where we are focusing our energies: on improving the return to work. Up until now governments have spent millions of dollars -- last year we spent about half a billion dollars -- to get injured workers back to work, with little or no success to show for it.

For the first time we have rewritten the act so that there be obligations on the worker and the board and the health care professionals and the employer to work cooperatively together, keep together, communicate and make sure we identify the functional ability of injured workers and bring them to the point where we can quickly get them back into the workplace.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Minister of Health. You've slashed hospital budgets by 18%. You've made an unprecedented power grab under Bill 26. You're the one who gave us the infamous Tory bulldozer now working its way across the province, plowing under hospital after hospital. You're going to be remembered as the person who began to destroy health care in this province. Time and again you have denied that your cuts, your reckless bully tactics are not affecting patient care in this province. Do you still stand by that position?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The only one that's cut health care in this province is the federal Liberal government in terms of dollars. We are asking hospitals to find efficiencies. Where we hear of problems we're not allowing gaps to occur in services. We've told all hospitals, and they're working very well, to ensure that all the dollars they find in efficiencies are reinvested into front-line services so that we have a fully integrated and better health care system when the restructuring is completed.

Mr Duncan: I was curious that the minister said there were no gaps in service, because day after day in this House we have raised example after example of Ontarians who are suffering as a result of your cuts and your government's cuts to health care, your big gaps. Still the minister denies the impact his cuts are having.

Today I want to talk about a gentleman named Allan Rawlyk in Thunder Bay. He's a haemodialysis patient whose access to dialysis is in an artificial vein in his arm. He has been suffering from complications after leakage began. Yesterday, on the advice of his specialist, he flew to Toronto to see a vascular surgeon. The surgeon determined that surgery was required.

After coming all the way from Thunder Bay to Toronto General he was told they couldn't do the surgery as they'd already reached their November quota for dialysis treatment, which would be needed as a backup if something went wrong. He was told to return next week when the hospital had a new budgetary allotment. Minister, is this acceptable to you or is this another gap in service?

Hon Mr Wilson: The people in the province know that across the country and North America we have fixed budgets. It's up to hospitals to prioritize the needs of the patients who present themselves or are referred to those hospitals.

As you know, we only fund a certain number of lung operations at a particular hospital per year. As that budget is used up they can reprioritize their money or try and make arrangements with other hospitals. I'm explaining that we have to work with hospitals to set priorities within the budgets. I'd be happy to look into the case. The system has not changed one iota in that respect. In fact, health care budgets are up significantly in many parts of the province.

Once you provide us with all the information we will work with that particular hospital, or there may be a capacity at other institutions to look after the gentleman in question.

Mr Duncan: Not only is there a gap in service, there's a chasm. There's a chasm between gaps in service and your credibility. We keep saying example after example after example of people in this province who are suffering as a result of your cuts. Your reinvestments haven't come close to what you said you'd reinvest. This gentleman flew all the way from Thunder Bay. His surgeon was willing to do the operation. The only reason he returned without receiving care is because you have forced hospitals to ration that care. Every day he goes without care, he risks infection and further complications.

Minister, what do you say to this gentleman, who's watching television tonight, and how do you explain your comment that there are no gaps in service to somebody who's waiting in fear, looking for surgery, looking for help, when you're preventing him from getting it?

Hon Mr Wilson: Surgeries and the priority of surgeries have been determined by physicians on a clinical basis. I don't understand this case, because we've pumped $25 million this year, new dollars, into dialysis services. Dialysis, cardiac and mental health services and a few others are protected budgets. Hospitals, by law, cannot cut those budgets, so yes, I don't understand this --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Essex South, please come to order; Windsor-Sandwich; the leader of the official opposition. I'm calling the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Leader of the official opposition, please come to order; the member for Oriole as well.

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, if the honourable member provides the details we'd be happy to look into it. Dialysis is a protected budget. We've added $25 million this year to that budget; we're spending more money than at any other point in history on dialysis services in this province. I would be very interested to help all I can with this particular case, because there should be no reason that this gentleman can't get surgery in this province.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Labour, who today is putting the knife to the workers' compensation system: The government is taking $15 billion from injured workers, you're killing the Occupational Disease Panel, you're undermining the confidentiality of medical records, and you're going to give $6 billion to your wealthy friends. But what's incredible is that this Conservative government tries to package this ugly attack on injured workers as somehow improving accident prevention, as somehow improving the return to work, as somehow being good for workers.

Part of this bill is a 50% cut to the retirement pensions of retired injured workers, some of the poorest people in our society. Can the Minister of Labour tell us why the Conservative government is cutting the retirement pensions of injured workers by 50% while you give $6 billion to your wealthy corporate friends?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would simply indicate to the leader of the third party that I believe the legislation before us is going to improve the quality of life for people in this province. I would also indicate to you that the changes being made to the pension fund will still enable the injured worker to make his or her 5% contribution.

Mr Hampton: So the government takes 50% away from retired injured workers, gives it to their corporate friends, and then says to the retired injured worker, "You replace what we gave to our corporate friends." What a deal.

There are some other issues that need to be addressed. Under the Workers' Compensation Act, the spouse and children of a worker who is killed by a workplace accident or occupational disease have a right to compensation, but you're going to cut that compensation for their surviving children and spouse. Perhaps you're hoping that by cutting the surviving children and the surviving spouse, somehow this will be an incentive in the workplace.

It's bad enough that the Conservative government is lowering the standard of living of all working people in this province by encouraging scabs. It's bad enough that you're driving down the standard of living of injured workers with these mean-spirited cuts. But will you at least consider sparing the children and the surviving spouses?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you well know, the inflation protection will still be there at 100% for the disabled and also for the survivors.

Mr Hampton: This gets more incredible. You cut the surviving spouse and you cut the children and then you say: "But after we've cut you there'll still be some inflation protection. Don't worry, we'll cut you, but somehow you'll be protected from inflation." It's not inflation that people are worried about. Inflation runs at less than 2%. It's the more than 5% that you're going to take.

Just one further question. The government says this has to be done because they say compensation rates are too high in Ontario, that compensation runs higher than in the United States. Well, we checked with some of your corporate friends. We looked at KPMG Peat Marwick, and they show that in fact Ontario's compensation rates are lower than a lot of the states in the United States.

Minister, why don't you just come clean on this? Why don't you just come out and admit that you're going to take from retired injured workers, you're going to cut their pensions, you're going to take from the surviving spouses and the surviving children of workers who die in the workplace to give money to your wealthy corporate friends?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If we want to be honest, we need to recognize that the KPMG study, which was done in 1994, was done for the federal government in order that they could sell Canada to the investment community. As a result, it very selectively surveyed --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, leader of the third party.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The information contained in that study very selectively surveys certain sectors and applies, so it is not totally representative of the true facts and does not cover all of industry in the province of Ontario or elsewhere.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce a former member from Oshawa in the members' west gallery, Mr Mike Breaugh. Welcome.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the health care crisis he has created in Ontario. Last week the Toronto Star cited a government source as confirming that your government plans to download the responsibility for public health units, long-term care, assistive devices and community health centres to municipalities. Now, downloading these health care services on to the municipalities puts a huge financial burden on the property tax system and threatens the very existence of these important public health services.

My question of the Minister of Health is this: Will you reassure the health care workers and health care providers across this province that the Conservative government will not be cutting these important public health care services by pushing them off on the municipalities? Will you confirm that?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): In the Who Does What process, which is trying to sort out and delayer the responsibilities that layers of government have in this province, if we look at some of the examples the honourable member has raised, we have municipalities involved, which have their bureaucracies to deliver those programs, and we have the Ministry of Health, with its huge bureaucracy, to deliver those programs.

The government is about getting rid of waste and duplication and cutting red tape and ensuring that we don't spend money on bureaucrats and bureaucracies, but that we spend money on patients, the nurses who will provide those public health services and front-line services in general.

I can assure the honourable member, though, this is not about cutting health care budgets. This is about trying to free up administrative dollars and driving those dollars to front-line services, where all of us should be concentrating our efforts.

Mr Hampton: I think the horse is out of the barn now. These are some of the most important health care services that people across Ontario receive. I just want to give the minister an example.

Just this week he was proudly pointing out that Sick Children's Hospital is operating as business as usual. I want to remind the minister that Sick Kids is operating on an as-usual basis because the physicians there are on an alternative payment system, the same alternative payment system that community health centres are on. Community health centres are providing services that are unaffected by your current disputes with physicians and everyone else in the province. They operate 24 hours a day. They provide services to some of the people in this province who are most in need of health care.

Minister, are you seriously considering pushing community health centres on to municipalities? Are you seriously considering undermining one of the primary care delivery systems that are really working?

Hon Mr Wilson: Community health centres themselves aren't waiting around and wallowing in the status quo; they're working with us on primary care reform. We're going to build and improve upon the experience we've had with Ontario's community health centres.

Again, Who Does What is about delayering government and bureaucracies and making sure we have the dollars freed up and driven towards front-line services. All of the programs across government are being looked at.

The honourable member in his first question mentioned public health. I'd remind him that all of the employees of public health are municipal employees today. Your local medical officer of health is a local municipal employee. Yet we retain a very large bureaucracy at Queen's Park to check over the shoulders of these people who are doing a very good job at the local level.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: We're having those discussions to make sure that all of our dollars are driven towards front-line services and away from administration and waste and duplication.

Mr Hampton: The Conservative government calls it Who Does What. It's become increasingly apparent that it's all about who does what to whom, and what you're doing is you're going to download a whole bunch of health care costs; you're going to download some of the most efficiently run health care systems in this province on to municipalities. This is nothing more than cuts.

Let's review a little bit of history. Let's look at the evidence. Last year you cut the funding to community health centres by $2.5 million. You cut the health innovation fund. You announced your Primary Health Care Reform Implementation Steering Committee in July, stating you'd have pilots up and running by the end of the year. It's now the end of November and there are no pilots. Now we see that you are downloading even more. The health care system is in chaos. Doctors, nurses and now community health centres and public health units see that there is no reform; there's only deconstruction of health care, cuts to health care.

Will you at least commit today that community health centres will remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and that --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: Community health centres will continue to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. That is the goal of primary care reform regardless of what particular administration is involved there. We want to look at every area and figure out what area of government, what level of government, can best deliver the programs. We're still going through that exercise and no decisions at all have been taken whatsoever.

For the honourable member to leave the impression with this House that there have been cuts to the overall health care budget, I remind the honourable member that he has yet to get up in this House and acknowledge the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: I would just remind the honourable member that the government has lived fully up to its commitment to preserve the health care budget. We've increased the health care budget in spite of the $2.1-billion cut from the federal government. We will absolutely live up to that commitment throughout our term in office. Our word is our word, and we are doing everything we said we would do, which is far better than either of these two parties could talk about after their shameful years in government.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This morning a joint statement on hospital sector cutbacks was made by the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario and the Ontario College of Family Physicians. They want to alert this minister that his cuts to our hospitals' budgets have created a crisis in quality patient care. They are very clear in what they are saying to the minister. They believe his plans and his cuts to our hospital budgets will result in a breakdown in quality, comprehensiveness and universality of Ontario's health care system. As they point out in their press release, it is a system that has been the hallmark of Canadian identity.

They are saying to you, Minister, that hospitals cannot cope with the cuts you are making to their budgets, that patients are suffering, they're being sent home without community supports, and that hospitals are replacing nurses with less qualified people and sick people in hospital are suffering. What do you say and what is it going to take to get you to listen to these people?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): My response is twofold. The Ontario Nurses' Association said two weeks ago that they believe there's 30% waste in the hospital system. Secondly, and the honourable member has had an opportunity to grill the Health Services Restructuring Commission, as it is going around the province we see examples of where they're finding waste and where they're asking those communities and those hospitals to get rid of the waste and concentrate on front-line patient services.

We know what the government has set out in terms of the vision for health care, which is a fully integrated system where we break down those hospital walls and concentrate on the patient -- not on the silos and not on the institutions that exist today, but actually concentrate on the needs of a patient from pre-cradle to grave. As we do that -- and the nurses agree with that, and the doctors.

I will be meeting with the Ontario College of Family Physicians, and if you read the other letter they sent, they're asking us to move towards a fully integrated system and all of the things we're working on with our partners in health care. I am confident that together we'll get rid of the waste and the duplication, cut the red tape and drive more dollars to patient services.

Mrs Caplan: To the Minister of Health, I would say: Listen to the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, listen to the Ontario Nurses' Association, listen to the Ontario College of Family Physicians and listen to those people who are saying to you, "Yes, create an integrated health system, but a barrier to doing that are your cuts to hospitals, because those are hurting patients and they are stopping us from getting to the kind of fully integrated system" that you and they envision.

You are cutting $1.3 billion out of hospitals, registered nurses are being replaced with less qualified workers and patients are suffering, Minister. Your own Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council asked you to look into the replacement of nurses. You hear that patient care is suffering and that, I quote, "There is a widening gap in our hospitals between the care that is required and the care that is available."

Minister, listen. This is the effect of your cuts to hospitals. You cannot deny it. Will you stand up today and say that you will stop the cuts to hospital budgets and put patients' interests first?

Hon Mr Wilson: I would ask the honourable member to listen to the hospital administrators in her own riding. Mr MacKenzie is very much one of those in the honourable member's own riding who tells us that the government is on the right track. I spoke only three weeks ago to the Ontario Hospital Association and the honourable member was at that meeting. The message they gave us was that the government is on the right track, that what we're asking hospitals to do is very doable. The commission has said it's more than doable. The nurses themselves, including representatives of the RNAO whom I met with earlier this week, are saying it's doable.

I'd ask the honourable member to simply be a little more optimistic, because the people in health care are optimistic that at the end of the day we're going to have a much better system where the patient comes first always throughout their journey through our health care system.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Solicitor General. Last session the Solicitor General was adamant that he would not be involved in operational matters related to events that led to the death of Dudley George, that he would not be involved in OPP operations. In answer to a question from my colleague the member for London Centre, the Solicitor General said, "If I as the Solicitor General...at any time involved myself in the details of operational matters of the police or investigations being conducted by the police, the honourable member would be the first on her feet to object, and rightly so."

Now we have proof that in fact the solicitor was involved in police matters. The police logs kept at Ipperwash show that OPP inspector Linton spoke on the phone from the command post of Superintendent Parkin and he said, "Marcel Beaubien was in tonight, he had talked to the Solicitor General.... And the Attorney General, they were comfortable."

Can the solicitor explain the contradiction between his comments in this House and the police log, which makes it clear --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Solicitor General.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I would suggest the honourable member talk to the OPP with respect to their logs. I have no recollection of such a conversation.

Mr Wildman: The Solicitor General says he has no recollection, but the police log also says that Superintendent Parkin says OPP commissioner Thomas O'Grady had been talking to Runciman and that they were "more than pleased with what the OPP was doing." Inspector Carson states that the Premier and the Solicitor General want to "deal with" this matter -- that is, the occupation -- at a meeting "this morning."

Can the solicitor explain this apparent contradiction between his statements and what the police logs indicate? Did he discuss this matter with the commissioner? Did he express opinions about the OPP's position? What does "deal with" this matter actually mean?

Hon Mr Runciman: The member is going to interpret these things in any way he wishes, especially if they can perhaps give him some sort of political advantage or perceived political advantage. I want to indicate that I said I do not involve myself in operational decisions of the police, and that is the case. It certainly has been the case since I assumed these responsibilities. I think the important remark they should be listening to is from the commissioner of the OPP, who said very clearly that there has been no political involvement or interference with respect to deliberations or operational matters surrounding the Ipperwash situation.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to introduce, in the members' east gallery, the ex-member for Scarborough Centre, Reverend Bill Davis. Welcome.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is for the Attorney General. I have been contacted by a family support plan recipient. Sandy is in hiding from an abusive ex-husband. She cannot raise this question through her own MPP for fear of identifying her whereabouts. Sandy has been registered with the family support plan since 1994. Originally, her ex-husband paid support for two months but has not paid any money for the last several months. She is now owed $4,000. Sandy believes he shelters assets under another person's name. I would like to know how you are going to help Sandy get the money owed to her.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Thank you for the question. As the member knows, I can't and won't comment on any specific cases. However, Bill 82, which is presently being debated, would allow us to pursue sheltered assets. As well, it will give us the ability to suspend drivers' licences and bring people forward who could begin paying on defaulted support orders. This will help us get more money to women and children who depend on it, and it will hopefully help the individual you referred to. I hope this can become law as soon as possible.

Mrs Ross: We've been debating Bill 82 for nearly a week. Sandy is owed $4,000. As you said, she would probably be helped once this bill has been passed through. Minister, when do you think we will see this bill become law, and how soon after its passage do you think we'll be able to put further steps in place to help Sandy?

Hon Mr Harnick: Again, thank you for the question. I would like this legislation to become law as fast as possible. If this legislation can become law by the beginning of January, we can start implementing licence suspension, we can start implementing a course to pursue people who shelter assets and we can start getting money to women and children. I hope people will support this legislation and make it law so that we can begin to collect moneys that have long remained outstanding.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board and, I gather, the senior person responsible for finances. The minister will know that today the Dominion Bond Rating Service, one of our major rating services, issued a report on Ontario's finances that can only be described as a warning about some significant financial problems ahead.

They point out that the 30% personal income tax scheme, they call it "cut," is the single largest challenge to the balanced-budget objective. They estimate that 88% of any growth in revenues is going to go right out the door in the tax cut. They point out that the province of Ontario debt is going to go up $20 billion over the next three years and that we are going to have to borrow $12 billion to pay for the tax scheme.

The question is this, Minister: Can you explain to the people of Ontario how Ontario can afford to borrow $12 billion to fund your tax cut?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The Minister of Finance has indicated the position of the government over a number of different questions that have been raised in the House on this matter.

One of the greatest problems we face in the province is unemployment. Clearly the tax cut is designed to allow people to keep more of their own money in their pockets. They'll use that money, they'll invest that money in the economy and jobs will be created. When people are working, they're paying taxes, and it's certainly the position of this government that over the course of this term that money will be returned to the treasury in terms of more people working, more people paying taxes and paying back into the revenues of the province. Indeed, this government is on target to eliminate the deficit by the end of this term and to start paying down the debt at that time.

Mr Phillips: The question, just to refresh your memory, is on the tax cut. The Dominion Bond Rating Service clearly says this is the big risk. They go on to point out that if the province's growth projections are off by even 1%, you're going to have to cut another $2.8 billion in spending, so you're going to have to slash deeper than you had ever contemplated.

But I go back to the fundamental question, that is, they say that's the big risk, the cut in personal taxes, so can you explain to the people of Ontario, when the Dominion Bond Rating Service agency and others say that our debt is going to go up $20 billion over the next three years, how can we afford to go out and borrow $12 billion to pay for your tax scheme?

Hon David Johnson: I'll explain and indicate to the member opposite and to the people of Ontario that indeed Ontario this year has been able to borrow, with the spread in comparison to the federal government, in comparison to the American government, at a much narrower rate. In other words, the investment community in the world is saying that Ontario is a good risk. As a result of our fiscal policies, Ontario is a good risk and there is a good deal of confidence in the province, more confidence than we've seen for many years.

I'll also indicate to the member opposite that in the Liberal red book of last year there is a quote that says, "As for Ontario families, many can't afford the taxes they're paying right now." That comes from the party indicating --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Tomorrow morning parents of school children in towns and cities across Ontario are going to be visiting constituency offices to discuss and protest against the cuts that you've made to education. I understand the minister has extended the deadline to January 2 for the so-called consultation on the secondary school reform proposals. In reality, that's only three weeks more when you take into account the Christmas and New Year holidays.

Will the minister commit to a realistic time frame for this consultation? Will he widen the consultation, not just limit it to certain invited people to the meetings, and allow all issues, that is, over 50 issues that are raised in the booklet, to be discussed and questioned rather than limiting discussion to only four?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member opposite for the question. Yes, we have agreed to extend the consultation period by another month because we want to hear the opinions of students who are currently in the system, of parents and of taxpayers across the province who I know are concerned with the quality of our education system and particularly reforms to secondary school.

The member has pointed out accurately that there are a number of issues to debate on a four-year secondary school program, on meeting that challenge, the challenge that has been met by every other province in Canada. If the member would read our discussion paper, he would find that we've specifically asked parents and students to respond to all the issues. We've said, "In addition to your responses to the following questions, we encourage you to provide us with comments and suggestions on related issues."

We are extending this consultation. It's unparalleled in Ontario to have this broad a consultation: 2.5 million copies of the discussion paper; consultations across the province; over 5,000 responses to date. I'm very pleased with the participation of the public in this process.

Mr Wildman: In addition to the parents' voices that are being raised, this morning the people responsible for implementing the changes to the curriculum and so on, the province's high school principals, added their voices and they called the consultation a sham. They outlined their concerns about curriculum, the costs, community and consultation. They pointed out that if there was an attempt to discuss more than the four issues that the ministry officials wish to discuss, parents and students were being told to deal with that in another forum or some other way.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's an opportunity now to put before the public and this chamber once again the things we have suggested. By the way, for the information of the honourable member opposite, the items in our discussion paper, the things we brought forward to the people of Ontario, are suggestions that have been made to us by people who are professional educators, professional teachers, people from our colleges and universities who worked on our advisory panel.

It's our intention, after we have a consultation with the public to find out what the taxpayers, parents and students think, to go back to educators and say, "How do we fulfil these requests?" That's the reason for the broad communications.

I would say to the member opposite that I hope, and I've talked to my parliamentary assistant, who's been running things very capably -- by the way, no one has been turned away, to my knowledge, from one of our public consultations. I would encourage those who are in the education community to please make room at these consultations for parents, make room for the taxpayers, make room for students so their voices can be heard. We will go back to the educators, to the professionals in our system and ask them the questions.

WORKFARE

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Recent newspaper reports have been suggesting a change to our Ontario Works policy. My constituents in St Catharines-Brock are very confused in this regard, as they receive different information from my office and from the media. Minister, would you please clarify once and for all for this Legislature the government's position on this issue?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Recent media reports have been trying to say that Ontario Works, our workfare program, has gone back to the drawing-board. I would like to tell them that is absolutely untrue. It is not going back to the drawing-board, it is not back on the drawing-board, and there is no need to put it back on the drawing-board because it is working and being implemented, community by community, across this province. We have 12 communities now up and running. We have another 10 coming in the door. I announced a week ago that phase 2 of Ontario Works is not more pilot projects; phase 2 is province-wide implementation.

Mr Froese: Minister, another aspect of confusion for my constituents is welfare recipients' responsibilities under this program. Could you outline these responsibilities for us?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There have been some attempts to confuse people about what is happening with our workfare program. For those who are on social assistance it is mandatory to participate in the Ontario Works program. There is no policy change, there is no rule change. That is consistent with the commitment we gave to the voters of Ontario in terms of what our Ontario workfare program would be.

There is a range of programs they are participating in, provided by our municipal partners. The goal is to get people on welfare back into paid jobs as quickly as we can.

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Linda Concellier is in the gallery today. She has asked that we bring her appeal to you publicly.

A few weeks ago you were told that her Wheel-Trans service was going to be cut because of changes in the eligibility criteria. Linda is a bright, competent university graduate who wants to contribute her skills to the economic life of this province. But Linda has cerebral palsy, and her doctors say it's dangerous for her to use public transit. Her final appeal has just been denied.

Minister, what advice can you give Linda today about what to do about her situation?

I don't know whom this individual is dealing with, whether it's the Toronto Transit Commission or another municipality. But one of the things I want to say is that all decisions, as far as Wheel-Trans or disabled transit are concerned, are clearly municipal decisions, and we're funding partners. I want to say to this House that we have not cut disabled funding. The funding that was in place has been supported. That's basically what I can say.

Mr Morin: I met with Linda in my office. I'm not a doctor, but it's quite simple to realize that she is incapable of walking on her own without at least some assistance from Wheel-Trans.

Your government is distancing itself from the fallout of its economic policies, but you cannot deny that the cutbacks in services to individuals like Linda are a result of this government's actions. In the last election you promised to protect funding for people with disabilities. Now we know that the very meaning of that word will be altered. As a result the community is bracing itself for even deeper cuts in the near future. Labels come and go but the very real needs of individuals remain.

Minister, can you tell Linda -- I invite you after question period to come and meet with her -- and others who care deeply about this issue that you will show leadership in defending the rights of people in need regardless of definition?

Hon Mr Palladini: Once again I would like to say that this government is definitely concerned about making sure that people who are disabled have an opportunity to get around.

We did not cut one dollar from disabled transit. The funding that was in place has been maintained. Municipalities are the ones that make a decision on who qualifies and so on, but apparently there is an appeal process in place that can be utilized if someone does not agree with a decision that was made.

This government has been working with municipalities in making an attempt to create a community transportation action program, and I believe these types of programs can also participate in delivering services like disabled transit and getting better utilization of the equipment we've got.

Very clearly this government, the Harris government, has not cut disabled transit.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Three weeks ago I asked the minister who heads up the cabinet committee looking at privatization; today I've got a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. The minister, from my initial question, would not categorically state that he was not going to privatize the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Just this past Friday there was a leak out of government that suggests that the OLC is in line for privatization and will be reduced from 770 employees to 350. I've read your terms of reference to the external review. There's absolutely nothing in here re the impact this will have on my community. Will you promise today to put that into anything you will do and ask this consultant to consider the impact this major move will have on my community?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm well aware of the member's concern about his constituency. We talked a lot about that in the estimates process we finished just last Wednesday. At the time that we went through, in the estimates process, the subject of the review of the Ontario Lottery Corp I told him that what was being done was being done in all the agencies, boards and commissions our government is involved in.

We think it is very good business to have a proper review of our agencies, boards and commissions. Nowhere did I tell him or suggest that this agency was going to be privatized or that there would be any dramatic changes occurring. But I thought it was advisable to tell him that what was being done with the Ontario Lottery Corp in Sault Ste Marie was being done with all our agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr Martin: This corporation is one of the primary enterprises in our community, not only for the present but for the future, one of the biggest employers in Sault Ste Marie. When it was moved first to Sault Ste Marie the government of the day laid out very clearly why they did that.

It says here: "A careful development plan for decentralization of an organization provides unique opportunities for the host community, the relocating organization and the government, expanded local demand generated by relocated employees, ongoing local procurement of goods and services by the relocated organization and local product and supplier development for new goods and services. Greater diversity of local employment base enables the community to better cope with economic cycles."

What are you saying to these people today? What am I to say when I go back to Sault Ste Marie on Friday to these people re the impact of what you're proposing on this corporation and the people of my community? Will you consider the impact that this will have on Sault Ste Marie and Algoma before you to do this?

Hon Mr Saunderson: What I'd like the member to go back to his constituents and tell them is that this is a responsible government on this side of the House, not like it was in the old days. Recently, about six months ago, we did a review of this particular agency and found that we could save $36.5 million. I would suggest that if we can find that kind of money --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Saunderson: What I was saying before the interruption was that we found $36.5 million last year on a search with that particular agency, and as far as we're concerned we think there could be more savings and we intend to do what we are doing as we are doing with all our agencies, boards and commissions. It is good business practice. This government is determined to run a business-like operation.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Recently the mayor of Scarborough issued an open letter to the Scarborough residents which was published on the front page of our local paper, the Scarborough Mirror, last week. In that letter the mayor states that the province has refused to meet with local officials and mayors regarding the issue of amalgamation.

Would the minister inform the House of meetings that he and his staff have had with the mayors and local officials since that letter was published concerning amalgamation and how those meetings went and what amount of research has gone into the issue of amalgamation and how his decisions will be brought forward so that the people of Scarborough and Metro Toronto will know?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Scarborough Centre for the question, an excellent question. As the House knows, there has been no final decision made at this time on the Toronto governance issue. At this point in time there has been no decision, but it's going to come very quickly.

We've given the six mayors until November 29 to formulate their proposal, they having stated that they intend to cut the size of councils by more than half and integrate all major services. I'm waiting with bated breath for that report. I've spoken to some of the mayors individually and I've spoken to them all collectively in a meeting we had on the 21st. We're going to be meeting again with them on the 29th.

I want to say, in response to the second half of that question, that there are more than 60 reports on restructuring in the greater Toronto area. There is a report --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Supplementary. Member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: The mayor's open letter refers to our government as irresponsible and states that the minister is basing his decisions without facts, only on gut feelings. Is this true?

Hon Mr Leach: It is true that we have more information on this issue than probably any other issue we've been dealing with. The member from Scarborough has asked for a list of the reports. If you haven't got it now, I will send it over to you right after question period.

PETITIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge seniors and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled on July 15; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user fee copayment or from any other non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee, or the painstaking task involved to fill out the application forms; and

"Whereas the current Ontario Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, promised as an opposition MPP in a July 5, 1993, letter to Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in this province;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the" PC "government to repeal this user fee plan because the tax- saving user fee concept is not fair, sensitive or accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors; and lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I've signed my name to it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is attacking workers' compensation benefits and the rights of injured workers; and

"Whereas Tory plans include taking $15 billion from injured workers and giving $6 billion to employers, including the government's rich corporate friends; and

"Whereas Cam Jackson, the former Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for gutting the WCB, refused to hold public hearings, choosing to meet secretly with business and insurance company representatives; and

"Whereas the WCB has about $7.6 billion in assets and its unfunded liability has been steadily shrinking; and

"Whereas the Jackson report and WCB legislation are just part of a coordinated attack on occupational health and safety protections for working families in Ontario; and

"Whereas Tory plans also include abolition of the internationally respected Occupational Disease Panel; and

"Whereas the government needs to hear the message that taking money from injured workers and lowering incentives for employers to make workplaces safer is not the way to make Ontario a better place to live;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold full, province-wide public hearings on WCB reform; to listen to the voice of the people calling for improved occupational health and safety protection; and to tell the Tory government to call off its attack on the dignity and standard of living of injured workers and their families."

This is signed by a number of constituents from my riding. I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to it.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I am pleased to present yet another petition, from the community of Barrhaven in my constituency, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the community of Barrhaven lacks any secondary schools to educate the large number of students living in this area;

"Whereas Barrhaven is the most rapidly growing community in Ottawa-Carleton;

"Whereas the National Capital Commission's greenbelt severs the community of Barrhaven from Nepean, forcing many students to take potentially dangerous, unsupervised, hour-long trips on public transportation in order to travel to school;

"Whereas Nepean's high schools are significantly overcrowded;

"Whereas both the Carleton Board of Education and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board have undertaken significant cost-saving measures to help reduce the construction costs of these high schools;

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

"We strongly urge the Minister of Education to recognize the unique educational needs of" Barrhaven and "Nepean and provide the funding required to build both of the proposed high schools for Barrhaven."

Because I am in agreement, I have affixed my own signature thereto.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition from hundreds of people in my riding and across Toronto about the cuts to the health care system which reads:

"Whereas proposed cuts in transfer payments pose a threat to Canada's national health care system; and

"Whereas, despite Mike Harris's promise on May 3, 1995, of `no cuts to health care spending,' his November 29 economic statement contains `$1.3 billion or 18% cuts to hospital spending over the next three years, and a further $225-million cut from the health care budget'; and

"Whereas, despite Mike Harris's promise in the Common Sense Revolution that aid for seniors and the disabled would not be cut, his November 29 economic statement shows cuts to the Ontario drug benefits plan and threatens access to drugs based on ability to pay; and

"Whereas the late Supreme Court Justice Emmett Hall, the father of Canada's medicare system, stated: `The only thing more expensive than good health care is inadequate or no health care'; and

"Whereas Ontario residents enjoy a one-tier health care system for all, regardless of financial status, without copayments or user fees;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, call upon Premier Mike Harris and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain and protect the health care provisions presently provided to all Ontario residents."

I affix my name to this petition.

SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a real pleasure to rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents Charlie Harper and Larry Davidson.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as well as the Minister of Transportation, Al Palladini; the Solicitor General, Bob Runciman; the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, Bill Saunderson:

"Whereas the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs continues in a significant way to contribute to the economy of Ontario;

"Whereas snowmobile clubs are very conscious of safe operation in conformance with regulations;

"Whereas snowmobile operators spend thousands of dollars on their machines and in fact on tourism in Ontario;

"Whereas these expensive modern machines usually have decals with names and other lettering on them;

"Whereas the current MTO-issued registration numbers are not complementary to the other lettering on the machines;

"We, therefore, petition the Legislature of Ontario to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, Revised Statutes of 1990,

chapter M.44, regulation 804,

section 23, subsections (3), (4) and (5), and allow the operators to affix their own registration numbers at their own expense."

I think this makes common sense. I'm pleased to affix my name to it.

SCHIZOPHRENIA

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to amend the Ontario Mental Health Act to ensure:

"That people suffering from schizophrenia and related disorders no longer face unreasonable barriers in their attempt to receive treatment in a psychiatric facility; and

"That patients being treated for schizophrenia and related disorders be allowed adequate time in hospital for treatment to be effective; and

"That a community treatment order be put in place for those with schizophrenia who need medical treatment to live in the community but are non-compliant and hard to treat."

I have hundreds of petitions here and I affix my name to this petition as well.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition from a number of citizens in my area. They're urging the government to stop the cuts to Ontario's poor and are urging Ontario citizens to express their conscientious objection to the tax cuts. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

I support this petition.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas convicted first-degree murderers are allowed to apply to the court for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period; and

"Whereas victims' families must relive the horrors of the original crime through a jury hearing for this early parole and relive this every time the killer is given rehearings for early parole; and

"Whereas the provincial government must bear a large degree of the costs involved with a jury hearing;

"We, the undersigned, ask the Attorney General of Ontario to request the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada to reconsider his decision under Bill C-45 and to repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada."

I endorse this petition and have signed it.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the 800,000 children who ride the school buses of Ontario are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy from unsafe drivers who are not stopping for school buses; and

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce since not only is a licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

be it resolved, that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That private member's Bill 78 be passed. The bill doubles the existing range of fines for identified drivers and establishes vehicle owner liability.

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 90, sent in by Roger Hardy, the president, and Roger Duchêne, the treasurer. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of my caucus colleagues, I add my name in support.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas convicted first-degree murderers are allowed to apply to the court for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period; and

"Whereas victims' families must relive the horrors of the original crime through a jury hearing for this early parole and relive this every time the killer is given rehearings for early parole; and

"Whereas the provincial government must bear a large degree of the costs involved with a jury hearing;

"We, the undersigned, ask the Attorney General of Ontario to request the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to reconsider his decision under Bill C-45 and to repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada."

I'm happy to affix my name to this.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Education promised that cuts to education would not hurt the classroom;

"Whereas the cuts to education have resulted in many of our very young children being housed in inadequate, poorly ventilated portables;

"Whereas the children who are housed in portable classrooms that occupy crowded school yards are educationally at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current moratorium on capital expenditures makes it impossible for some school boards to provide safe, comfortable learning environments for our children, thus adversely affecting the quality of their education;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed that $250 million be spent on building a superjail while withholding funds for necessary school construction;

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

"Remove the freeze on capital expenditures to ensure that our children are educated in buildings appropriate to and conducive of learning, comfort and safety."

I add my name to this important petition. It was gathered by Ms Theresa McNeil, chairperson of the St Timothy Catholic school advisory council, but I note she speaks for many of the concerned parents around the province whose children are inadequately housed and educated in the classrooms of this province.

SCHOOL BOARDS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions. The Chair recognizes the member for Nickel Belt.

Applause.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He just got his hair done too.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I was having a bad hair day.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government is planning to make significant changes to the delivery and governance of education in this province; and

"Whereas we as parents believe that school councils should play an important role in education, with clearly defined responsibilities limited to their particular school communities; and

"Whereas we as ratepayers are extremely disturbed that consideration is being given to abolish school boards and eliminate decision-making by locally elected representatives,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the present structure of school boards within the province of Ontario continue to have a major role in governance of the schools to deal with the broad policies as advocates for the students in their community, to provide cost-efficient educational services and to be directly accountable to the parents and local ratepayers."

I'm pleased that I finally was able to read this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 99,

An Act to secure the financial stability of the compensation system for injured workers, to promote the prevention of injury and disease in Ontario workplaces and to revise the Workers' Compensation Act and make related amendments to other acts / Projet de loi 99, Loi assurant la stabilité financière du régime d'indemnisation des travailleurs blessés, favorisant la prévention des lésions et des maladies dans les lieux de travail en Ontario et révisant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1527 to 1533.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Witmer has moved that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act to secure the financial stability of the compensation system for injured workers, to promote the prevention of injury and disease in Ontario workplaces and to revise the Workers' Compensation Act and make related amendments to other acts.

Those in favour please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Grimmett, Bill

Palladini, Al

Baird, John R.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Parker, John L.

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Pettit, Trevor

Bassett, Isabel

Harnick, Charles

Preston, Peter

Boushy, Dave

Hastings, John

Ross, Lillian

Brown, Jim

Hodgson, Chris

Runciman, Robert W.

Carr, Gary

Hudak, Tim

Sampson, Rob

Carroll, Jack

Jackson, Cameron

Saunderson, William

Chudleigh, Ted

Johns, Helen

Shea, Derwyn

Clement, Tony

Johnson, David

Sheehan, Frank

Cunningham, Dianne

Jordan, W. Leo

Smith, Bruce

Danford, Harry

Kells, Morley

Snobelen, John

DeFaria, Carl

Klees, Frank

Spina, Joseph

Ecker, Janet

Leadston, Gary L.

Sterling, Norman W.

Elliott, Brenda

Marland, Margaret

Stewart, R. Gary

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tascona, Joseph N.

Flaherty, Jim

Munro, Julia

Tilson, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Murdoch, Bill

Turnbull, David

Fox, Gary

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Froese, Tom

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Gilchrist, Steve

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Crozier, Bruce

Patten, Richard

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Phillips, Gerry

Bisson, Gilles

Gravelle, Michael

Pouliot, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Hampton, Howard

Pupatello, Sandra

Bradley, James J.

Kormos, Peter

Ramsay, David

Brown, Michael A.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Caplan, Elinor

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Christopherson, David

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Churley, Marilyn

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Cleary, John C.

Martel, Shelley

Cooke, David S.

Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 66, the nays are 31.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Minister, do you have a statement?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): No further comment.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IMPAIRED DRIVING), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUITE AVEC FACULTÉS AFFAIBLIES)

Mr Jim Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Impaired Driving Offences / Projet de loi 100, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les infractions pour conduite avec facultés affaiblies.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry? It is carried. Do you have a statement?

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to provide that a police officer may seize a motor vehicle or motorized snow vehicle driven by a person whom the police officer believes is committing an impaired driving offence. The police officer is required to give a written acknowledgement of the seizure to both the driver and the owner. If the driver is charged with an impaired driving offence and has previously been convicted of an impaired driving offence, the police officer may retain the seized vehicle until the charge is heard.

In all other cases the police officer may retain the seized vehicle for a period not exceeding 90 days. When the time period for retaining the seized vehicle has elapsed, the owner or the owner's agent is entitled to recover the vehicle unless the driver has previously been convicted of two or more impaired driving offences and had the vehicle without the owner's consent.

FRANCHISES' ARBITRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ARBITRAGES VISANT DES FRANCHISES

Mr Crozier, on behalf of Mr Chiarelli, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 101,

An Act to provide for the Arbitration of certain Disputes relating to Franchises / Projet de loi 101, Loi prévoyant l'arbitrage de certains différends concernant les franchises.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): The Franchises' Arbitration Act, 1996, provides for the arbitration of disputes between the parties to a franchise agreement. It's intended as a viable solution to current disputes between franchisees and franchisers. The bill addresses the immediate need for a dispute resolution mechanism in the absence of comprehensive franchise regulatory control.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mr David Johnson moved government notice of motion number 11:

That, pursuant to standing order 6(b)(i), the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on December 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1996, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to divide the time equally between the three parties.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Consent for divided time? Agreed? It is agreed.

Hon David Johnson: Good. This is a traditional motion to allow the House to debate the proceedings during the last two weeks in the month of December up until midnight, rather than 6 pm.

I would say, though, and I hope I share this with many of the members in the Legislature today, that we would prefer to be actually debating legislation and the business of the House, as opposed to extending the hours. I would take it for granted and government members would take it for granted that we are here to do the business of the province of Ontario and introduce legislation in the province of Ontario, and we'd prefer to be debating that legislation rather than how long we're going to talk. That being as it may, we will be apparently spending the rest of the afternoon on this motion to extend the sitting hours.

I will say that next week, during the extended hours, the government will be bringing forward the legislation that's on the table at the present time, legislation to cut red tape in Ontario that is impeding business growth in the province, to encourage economic growth, to encourage investment in Ontario, to encourage job creation in Ontario. There is no question that over the past year we have seen job growth in Ontario. We have seen the growth of 127,000 net jobs in this province since this government has taken office.

Even more encouraging, over the past month we have seen the growth of some 10,000 jobs for the young people in Ontario. One of the unfortunate aspects of the job creation and the growth had been that the younger people in our economy had not been able to participate. In the rest of Canada there is a considerable loss of jobs for young people, but here in Ontario we're seeing a growth of about 10,000 jobs in the last month for young people. That's encouraging and I know that is a situation that would be shared by all members of this Legislature.

Beyond that, we will be debating legislation next week which will help us to balance the books of the province of Ontario. I'm sure all the residents of Ontario would share this government's commitment to balancing the budget, to making ends meet in this province over the term of this government. The legislation that we will be debating will help us to do that.

We will be debating a motion which will remove duplication and waste in governments -- in this government but among municipal governments as well -- because we believe the economy is best served, the people of Ontario are best served if the governments are most effective and efficient and focus on their business and their responsibilities and there is a clear delineation as to the responsibilities of each particular government.

To be more specific, some of the legislation that's on the table at the present time includes a number of bills: Bill 52, for example, is on the table. I would like to see it receive third reading before Christmas. I think we can accomplish that with the extended hours next week. Bill 52, out of the Ministry of Natural Resources, deals with the aggregate, petroleum and salt resource industries. It allows the Ministry of Natural Resources to develop compliance partnerships with the industry, for example, to hold the industry accountable for day-to-day site inspections.

This, I think, will simplify government procedures, make government more efficient, and it will be less of a burden for the industry itself and hopefully lead to growth in that industry and job creation.

Bill 57, the Environmental Approvals Improvement Act, is a bill to bring improvements to the approvals process with regard to the certificates of approval in Ontario. It also deals with the repealing of the Ontario Waste Management Corp, which has been wound up.

Bill 61 is the first of a number of red tape bills, some eight red tape bills, introduced by this government to reduce the regulatory burden on our industries in Ontario, and to encourage their growth and job creation through those means.

Bill 63, another one of the red tape bills through the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation will streamline three of the agencies associated with that ministry and improve the accountability of the boards associated with those agencies.

Bill 64, from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, eliminates redundant procedures and reduces regulations that are unnecessary burdens to business.

Anything that will reduce the burden on our business community, provided there is protection, and there always has to be protection for the people of Ontario, provided there is appropriate protection, anything that will reduce the regulatory burden, the red tape on our business community will inevitably lead to those jobs among the youth and among all people in Ontario.

Bill 65 out of the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism is another red tape bill that eliminates the red tape in the operation of the tourism agencies. There are a lot of important industries in Ontario, but I think we would all agree that the tourism industry in Ontario, when you look at the scope of the tourism industry from one end of Ontario to the other, east to west, north to south, surely is one of the most important industries, creating jobs for people all across the province. We're hoping through Bill 65 to simplify the procedures in that industry and help the tourist establishments to grow and create jobs.

Bill 66 out of the Ministry of Environment and Energy: Streamline the government process and provide more flexible operations of the boards administering a variety of acts -- again job creation.

Bill 67 out of the Ministry of Health: To improve government efficiencies and remove barriers that hinder businesses and the institutional sector from competing in an increasingly competitive market.

These are the bills we will be debating next week and hopefully will receive approval through this Legislature.

Bill 69 out of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services will simplify various procedures and remove barriers and inefficiencies, and remove unnecessary and obsolete regulations pertaining to, for example, private investigators and security guards -- another industry and business in Ontario that we may not always think of, but one that is important.

Bill 81 is not a red tape bill, as the members opposite will know. Bill 81 is the redistribution act, the act that reduces the number of provincial politicians from 130 down to 103.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It will affect the Tories.

Hon David Johnson: It will, I suspect, affect all three parties, but I must say to the member opposite that the boundaries were created at the federal level under the existing federal party, which is the Liberal Party. That is where the boundaries came from and we said, "Look, if 103 federal members will be able to successfully represent the province of Ontario after the next federal election, then 103 provincial representatives will be more than adequately able to represent the people of Ontario in this Legislature after the next provincial election."

By reducing those 27 members from 130 down to 103, we show our willingness in this House to be part of the solution to the ills and the financial picture in Ontario. We show that if we're to ask the civil service to do better with less, if we are to say we have to restructure and downsize the civil service, shouldn't the politicians be prepared to participate in that solution as well? I think the answer is yes, we should. This bill will accomplish that and save millions of dollars to boot, some $11 million right off the top in terms of the reduced number of elected representatives and more if we combine our electoral process with the federal government.

Now we get to Bill 82, a bill that we've been debating over the last three days, a bill that I sincerely hope we would see pass through this House. I have in my hand a letter with regard to Bill 82 dealing with the family support plan. There has been a problem, as we all know in this House, in the family support plan over the past number of years, a problem that we cannot turn a blind eye to, a problem that surely every member of this House would wish to address.

I have a letter which was written to the member for Sudbury East, I must say, and it comes from the Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears. This is a letter from the Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears, which means that there are fathers who are separated from their family, they're not paying the money they should be paying. This involves a tragedy, frankly, in many families, and there is an organization expressing concern about this. This organization calls itself the Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears.

They write on November 20 of this year to the member for Sudbury East, and they say that they are writing to express their disgust with the behaviour in the Ontario Legislature of the member for Sudbury East with regard to the second reading of Bill 82.

They go on to say, "May we remind you and your party" -- and they're referring to the third party, the NDP, the party which was in power through the last term of government -- "that we, the Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears, had to literally take picket signs to the homes and offices of the fathers who chose not to pay child support." They were not paying child support and this organization had to take pickets.

"May we also remind you that we picketed the Attorney General's office in June 1993, addressing the very issues contained in Bill 82. We did meet with the family support director shortly after that and were told that a bill similar to 82 would be passed by the NDP. Well," it says here, "it never did. Children are the individuals who suffered from the failure of your party," the NDP, "to pass this legislation."

It asks the rhetorical question, "Did you care?" It answers, "Not visibly. After all, children do not vote," is what this letter says. "In effect, nobody else voted for the NDP either." What else could one expect?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): You're being provocative, Dave.

Hon David Johnson: Maybe this is provocative. I'm reading from this letter and this letter from mothers who are concerned about receiving child care support payments is saying please get on with Bill 82, get Bill 82 passed through this Legislature, get those measures in place that will help those mothers recover those payments.

On Bill 82, we hope to complete second reading shortly, get it out to committee and get it back so that we can help those mothers who need to get those payments.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: I don't need to tell it to the Attorney General. He wants to see this through. He's not the one holding this up. We know who's holding this up.

Bill 84 is another bill we hope to debate. This is the Fire Prevention and Protection Act, another bill that's important to fire services in the province of Ontario. I know the Solicitor General wants to see this bill have its second reading and then go out and have consultation with the people of Ontario. We want to see consultation with the people of Ontario. I know the Solicitor General is consulting on a daily basis, but in particular on this bill, he would like to see this very specific bill go out and receive public hearings, both here in Toronto and across Ontario. We expect to get some very good input across Ontario.

Bill 86: another bill for better local government. This is one to give municipalities more authority and greater flexibility to govern and deliver services effectively. It also introduces new ways of voting as well, to give municipalities more flexibility in that regard. Municipalities have been asking for more flexibility. We all know that municipalities have been asking for more flexibility for many years and I hope that we can join together. If we can't get together on Bill 82, if we can't get together on maybe some of the other legislation, I at least hope that on this, for the sake of the municipalities, we might get together.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'd ask those two members to come to order. Your turn will be coming, and then I would like to hear from you. Right now it's this member's turn.

Hon David Johnson: We've only got just over 20 minutes left. I'm going to wrap up in a minute here anyway. I know we have two other speakers who wish to speak.

The Road Safety Act, Bill 92: Surely we agree on that, don't we? Don't we want to bring more safety to the roads of the province of Ontario? All right, let's have some applause for Bill 92 from all sides.

Applause.

Hon David Johnson: Good. Do I see all-party support for safety on our roads? Well, the Minister of Transportation has the answer, and the answer is Bill 92, to implement a safety rating system for the commercial carriers and improve safety on our streets.

Interjections.

Mr Crozier: You sure can whip us into a frenzy.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry. The frenzy is going to have to end.

I'd simply mention that there are other pieces of legislation, the Tenant Protection Act, for example. In my days as the mayor of East York for many years, we had, and I'm sure we've all had this experience, many tenants coming to us in my capacity as mayor and saying that the maintenance laws of the province of Ontario are not adequate. The procedures municipalities must go through to ensure proper maintenance in apartment buildings is laborious, it's lengthy, it's time-consuming. By the time you go through it step after step after step -- and it takes months -- to correct the problems you correct, a whole new set of problems has started during that whole process. It's unending.

Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act, will streamline that process, will offer a better resolution to municipalities to come to grips with the maintenance problems and to create and enforce the good housing conditions that the tenants of this province deserve. Besides that, it maintains protection for sitting tenants, tenants who remain, rent control protection in their units. That is a bill that deserves to have second reading, deserves to be out, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is insisting that we have further public hearings on this bill and that it be out there again and we get good advice from the tenants and the people of the province of Ontario.

Those are some of the pieces of legislation that we will be debating. This party, this government is here to work to debate those bills through the midnight sessions and get them passed and get them in effect for the people of the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, are we dealing with everything in a block, or what? That's what I thought we were doing.

The Acting Speaker: There was unanimous consent to divide the time, but that was all that I'm aware of.

Mr Wildman: Fine, all right, so we will be doing a rotation, then. Thank you, Mr Speaker, because I was informed by the Liberal House leader we were doing it a different way.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: As I rise to participate in this debate on the motion to extend sittings to midnight, I really have a feeling of déjà vu. I guess the phrase "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" really does apply here. It seems that every government of whatever political stripe, as it approaches the end of the session, is faced with myriad pieces of legislation that it has not yet passed which it must have passed before the Christmas break.

After being in this place for a number of years, it's come to be part of the Christmas season for me that we have this kind of a motion before the House and we have the government House leader up giving a litany of the pieces of legislation that really must be passed by the government for one reason or another before the House can break for the Christmas-New Year holiday.

It really calls into question why governments are unable, it appears, to order their affairs in such a way that they can start introducing and debating pieces of legislation in September and October rather than coming to the end of November and saying, "Suddenly we've got to get this all done, because these a