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

June 4, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L082 - Tue 4 Jun 1996 / Mar 4 Jun 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TIANANMEN SQUARE ANNIVERSARY

ARTS AND CULTURE

TORNADO RELIEF FUND

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

WOMEN'S MARCH AGAINST POVERTY

POSTER CONTEST

SENIOR CITIZENS

NATIVE HOUSING

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

OBSTETRICAL CARE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

SECURITY SERVICE

TRUCKING SAFETY

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FINANCING

COMMENTS OF MINISTER OF HEALTH

QUESTION PERIOD

PETITIONS

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM LEGISLATION

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

WATERFRONT EROSION

TRANSITION HOUSE

BEAR HUNTING

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

ONTARIO HYDRO

CHILD CARE

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

GASOLINE PRICES

APOLOGY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE STABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA STABILITÉ DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE FROM QUEBEC ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE DE LA CONSTRUCTION DU QUÉBEC

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION FINANCING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

EDUCATION FINANCING (CONTINUED)

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

ONTARIO HYDRO

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TIANANMEN SQUARE ANNIVERSARY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise in the House today to remember the seventh anniversary of the massacre of democracy protestors at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China. It was seven years ago today that the butchers of Beijing ordered the murder and massacre of hundreds of students whose only crime was fighting for democracy. The brutality and magnitude of the military attack in 1989 is still very vivid in my mind seven years later.

Although Canada and the world expressed shock at the time, it is now business as usual with this regime in China. We continue to trade and have economic partnerships with a regime that totally and blatantly violates human rights. The Canadian government, Ontario and the other provincial governments across this country continue to deal with a regime that detains and murders democracy activists today.

That government yesterday arrested a woman for trying to place flowers at the site of the massacre. On Friday they jailed democracy activist Wang Xizhe for travelling outside of his restricted town.

Today in the House we remember the sacrifices made by the tens of thousands of students who risked their lives for democracy in 1989; we remember the hundreds of students who were killed. They were shot, crushed by tanks and tortured because they stood up for democracy.

It is a shameful day for that government. It is also a shameful day for the Canadian government and governments across this country that continue to deal with the murderers and brutal dictators in a regime that continues to go after people for simply standing up for democracy. It is a shame and a disgrace that we continue to do that in this country.

ARTS AND CULTURE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm standing today in the House to talk about the great extent to which the arts and culture sector of our economy contributes to our prosperity here in Ontario. We have the very, very good fortune in Ontario to have many creative and fine artists, actors, musicians, those who work within the arts and culture sector. It's important that even though we acknowledge that quality of life is an important aspect of the arts and culture, the economy is as well.

Ontario's arts and culture sector generates over $11.2 billion annually and creates 260,000 jobs. This is in addition to thousands of self-supported artists who exist within this province. The arts and culture sector is a growth sector. Even during the worst recession of this century, the number of jobs in Ontario's cultural industries grew, and that is a very important thing for us to remember.

The arts and culture sector is a very strong contributor to local economies. If we look at areas like Blyth, for example, in the county of Huron, the festival has a direct economic impact of $1.6 million locally and an estimated total impact of $2 million across a 50-mile radius.

So as we are thinking about our priorities as government, it's important for us to look at the arts and culture sector of our economy as an important part of our prosperity.

TORNADO RELIEF FUND

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On April 20, a devastating tornado swept through the northern part of Wellington county, hitting the townships of Arthur, West Luther and Peel. In its wake the tornado left extensive damage to homes and farm properties. Preliminary estimates place the total damage at over $4 million. Although many people had their properties insured, there is a considerable overall shortfall between what insurance will cover and the estimates we've received for rebuilding.

Thanks to the outstanding efforts of the township councils, the disaster relief committee and hundreds of volunteers, a fund-raising and cleanup campaign was set up. Without these generous and selfless volunteers, we could not have coped with the disaster we faced. I'm also grateful to the Solicitor General, who within hours of the tornado's occurrence personally visited the affected areas. His interest and concern is very much appreciated.

But much still remains to be done. Damage is extensive and repairs are costly. I have written to and on several occasions spoken with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, encouraging him to support the request by the three townships for funding through the Ontario disaster relief assistance program. I've also advised the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Solicitor General and the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet of the situation in Wellington and our need for financial assistance from the province. We need the help of our provincial government.

Financial donations from the public are also urgently needed. I want to encourage anyone who wishes to contribute to do so at any branch of the Royal Bank. Funds will be directed to the tornado relief fund for Arthur, West Luther and Peel townships, Royal Bank branch 00202, account number 5013-479.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I would like to address my comments to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, I have it on good authority that you have now received the results of a study which you requested from Essex county MOEE staff on 30 partially raised septic systems in Essex. I understand the study shows that sewage is being effectively treated within these systems and it recommends approving them. Thousands of people in Essex-Kent and other ridings are awaiting your decision. Now that you have the results of the study, how much longer must they wait for the approvals?

Speaking of long-standing issues, residents near the Fletcher landfill site in my riding have been waiting many years for a decision from your ministry about the closing of the site. You told media in my riding two weeks ago that you knew nothing about it, but I have had several meetings with your staff and received letters signed by you regarding this problem. I even invited you to come and look at the site. So I wonder whether you have any idea what you are signing. More importantly, I hope you have now obtained a briefing so that you can discuss this issue.

WOMEN'S MARCH AGAINST POVERTY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to expand on a statement I made yesterday regarding the Women's March Against Poverty which arrives in Sault Ste Marie tomorrow.

It's a march that will focus on, among other things, the fact that 1996 was declared by the United Nations as the Year for the Eradication of Poverty, yet ordinary Canadians are seeing their lives, hopes and futures collapsing as governments at all levels cut funding to social programs and job security is disappearing.

Women and children make up the majority of Canada's poor. Women across Canada, led by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Canadian Labour Congress, have come together to organize the Women's March Against Poverty and social injustice.

The march started on the west and east coasts on Tuesday, May 14, and is headed across Canada to arrive in Ottawa by June 15, 1996. Under the banner "For Bread and Roses! For Jobs and Justice!" the march will focus on seven central issues: the need for a Canada social security act which will address federal standards, funding for women's shelters and centres, and a national child care program, among other things.

The western caravan will be stopping in the Sault on Wednesday, June 5. Many local women are planning activities to welcome the caravan and publicize the concerns of the marchers. There will be a gathering at the Civic Centre in Sault Ste Marie at 4 o'clock tomorrow. We will then be going to the Indian Friendship Centre and the soup kitchen. Everybody is welcome to attend.

POSTER CONTEST

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I have something special to share with the members of this chamber today.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The sign is out of order.

Mr Flaherty: This fine poster being held by the member for Scarborough Centre states, "Bring an end to racism so that the children of tomorrow can live in a peaceful world."

It was the winning entry in a contest sponsored by the Durham Regional Police Service, the Durham Board of Education, the Durham Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Northumberland-Clarington Board of Education and Hewlett-Packard of Canada. Students from high schools across Durham region entered the contest of their own volition in either the intermediate or senior categories and were judged in a process administered by the Durham police.

Whitby's own Peter Mishevski of Anderson Collegiate and Vocational School is the winner and designer of this fine poster for a very worthy cause. Peter is a student who is strong in the arts and is considering a career in the field of graphic arts. He was encouraged by his teacher, Lindsay Howlett, to enter the contest. His poster was reproduced courtesy of Hewlett-Packard, which also provided the grand prize for the best poster, a complete computer package.

The posters have been distributed all around Durham region. I'd be pleased to assist members and others in obtaining copies of this fine piece of work. I know my colleagues in the House today will join in congratulating Peter Mishevski on a job well done. Let's all join together to bring an end to racism so that the children of tomorrow can live in a peaceful world.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): On the first of this month the Minister of Health assumed lead responsibility for seniors' issues, including the coordination of Seniors' Month in June. As a former minister for senior citizens, I have great concern about how this government has slowly diminished its commitment to the wide-ranging needs of the elderly, quite apart from its initiative in long-term care.

The shift in responsibility for the broad range of seniors' issues to the Ministry of Health indicates quite clearly that what this government has done is adopted a sickness model rather than a wellness model in dealing with the concerns of so many dynamic participants in the life of this province.

Seniors' Month used to be an acknowledgement of the important role our elders play in our changing society. This year, funding cutbacks have limited the provincial government to simply encouraging the development of local themes in communities that may wish to celebrate Seniors' Month.

This may be a rational way to save some money, but I would like to advance a caution. Seniors are not a special-interest group. They are our own future. It would serve us well to focus on how the older among us are now, and can better be, encouraged and supported to stay strong and vigorous contributors to Ontario society. I would ask this government to more thoughtfully review its commitment to the well, not just the vulnerable elderly.

NATIVE HOUSING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Since 1987, the Frontier's Foundation received financial support from the Ontario Ministry of Housing to deliver a home renovation program which is geared towards the renovation of substandard residential units in off-reserve, Metis and native communities across northern Ontario. Unfortunately, this year the Conservative government ended any participation by Ontario in the Frontier's Foundation.

What a shame, because the reality of the Frontier's Foundation is that it promoted community volunteerism, promoted community involvement and promoted homeowners' sweat equity in terms of improving housing conditions in communities that are very impoverished. The funding translated into a much larger economic benefit to the homeowners, to the community in general and in particular to any local business in small, mostly rural and remote communities across northern Ontario.

From 1987 to 1994, 235 substandard housing units were improved through the Frontier's Foundation at an average cost of only $7,800 per unit. It employed literally hundreds of people and was a real benefit to local small business, but now it's gone.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I join my colleagues from the opposition, the honourable members for Dovercourt and Yorkview, and also on behalf of our fellow Italian members from our caucus, the members for Simcoe Centre, Ottawa-Carleton and York Centre, in celebrating yesterday, which was, as Italians know, our national day marking the foundation of the modern republic of Italy.

Thanks to Canadians of Italian background, Italian culture and traditions have been ably transplanted here to enrich the lives of all citizens of our country. I call the attention of all members of the House to what is perhaps an often overlooked example of this, that the majority of symbols and traditions that surround us here in this Legislature are historically derived from the legal, legislative and monarchic traditions of the Italic Roman Empire.

On behalf of the government of Premier Mike Harris, I would like to congratulate and thank our Italian Canadian community for all its contributions to Ontario and Canada.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Later today I will be introducing a bill entitled the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act, 1996.

With this bill we are delivering on our election commitment to repeal Bill 164 and make auto insurance work again in the best interests of Ontario drivers. This new legislation focuses on consumers by providing them with a fair, balanced and stable auto insurance system.

Last February Rob Sampson, my parliamentary assistant for financial institutions and MPP for Mississauga West, released draft legislation for review by an all-party committee of this Legislature that held public hearings across the province of Ontario. They listened to Ontarians, and today we are responding to Ontarians' concerns. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Sampson for his hard work and delivering what I think is a first-class product to the people of Ontario.

We believe that our changes will provide the environment for healthy competition in the marketplace and stabilize premiums over the long term by strengthening consumer protection, taking aggressive action against fraud and uninsured drivers and restoring the right of innocent accident victims to sue. The plan we are introducing today will set reasonable no-fault accident benefit levels and provide strong tools to control fraud and overcompensation.

By reducing excessive treatment for auto accident injuries, the overall costs of the system will be lower for the industry to administer. We expect that these savings will be reflected in more stable rates for the consumer over the long term.

We have incorporated a number of new initiatives in this legislation to better protect the consumer. For example, the bill will establish a new insurance Ombudsman position to investigate consumer complaints. It will require insurers to offer discounts to retirees. It will make it easier for individuals to comparison-shop for auto insurance by making brokers more accountable to consumers and requiring them to disclose which insurers they have agreements with, the companies they obtained a quote from and the amount of each quote. It will allow insurers to offer optional benefit top-up coverages.

This will provide consumers with the ability to customize their insurance plan to meet their individual needs. We will ensure that consumers with minor lapses in insurance coverage will not face significant premium hikes.

This is a first step towards reforming the Facility Association. The government will work with consumers and insurers to revamp the Facility Association to make sure that only truly high-risk drivers are forced to seek coverage from this insurer of last resort.

Honest drivers pay the price for fraud through higher premiums. With this legislation, we are creating a separate offence for possessing and selling false auto insurance certificates. Fines will range from a minimum of $10,000 to a maximum of $50,000 for a first offence and these amounts will be doubled for a second offence. In addition, to reduce fraud and its cost, this bill will establish three new offences to discourage fraudulent claims by claimants, health service providers, auto body repair shops, the industry and others.

It is against the law in Ontario to drive without insurance, yet there are many uninsured motorists on our roads. Currently the fines for this offence range from $500 to $2,500. In many cases the fines are less than the actual cost of insurance coverage itself. To discourage this practice we are increasing the fines tenfold, to $5,000 up to $25,000 for a first conviction and $10,000 to $50,000 for subsequent convictions. In addition, people who are injured while driving or occupying their own uninsured vehicle will not be able to sue a negligent party for any damages.

In the next few minutes my colleague Al Palladini, the Minister of Transportation, will be announcing additional measures his ministry is taking to deter uninsured drivers and reduce insurance fraud.

This bill will expand the right of innocent accident victims to sue for loss of income and loss of earning capacity in excess of the no-fault benefit. Under Bill 164 there is no right to sue for income losses, and compensation is limited to no-fault benefits. With restored tort rights, fairness is brought back into the auto insurance system. People who suffer catastrophic impairments will now be able to sue for health care expenses in excess of the no-fault benefit of $1 million. Seriously injured innocent accident victims whose injuries meet a threshold will be able to sue for pain and suffering subject to a deductible.

We will be introducing an auto insurance rate index. This index will be an objective measure that will be used as a benchmark for reviewing insurers' rate applications. We will also reduce the regulatory burden on insurers. This bill will enable them to make simplified rate filings with the Ontario Insurance Commission and to obtain faster approval if their proposed filing is below or at the regulated benchmark.

We believe that Ontarians want an auto insurance system that is fair, efficient and provides them with an end to the double-digit increases we have seen in the past few years. By making drivers responsible for their actions and restoring their right to sue for economic losses, we are providing Ontarians with a system that will work for them and put them back in the driver's seat.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): The Ministry of Transportation is pleased to support the legislation my colleague the Honourable Ernie Eves is introducing today. The insurance amendments proposed by my honourable colleague are supported by my ministry because they will be beneficial to all road users.

This legislation will reduce auto insurance fraud, help stabilize the cost of auto insurance and reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on our roads.

The part of this legislation that directly involves the Ministry of Transportation will require the insurance industry to report the auto insurance status of its clients. This means that if someone cancels their auto insurance or allows it to lapse and yet continues to drive, we will know about it. When the police pull a vehicle over they will have up-to-date information available, information they need to keep uninsured vehicles off the road. As a result, this will reduce the insurance burden for all vehicle owners who now carry the cost of those drivers who do not have insurance.

We're supporting the Ministry of Finance in other ways. In the fall we intend to introduce legislation that will prevent fraud relating to wrecked and stolen vehicles. A new national system will prevent stolen, wrecked and unsafe rebuilt vehicles from being put on the road. This should significantly reduce the opportunities for this kind of insurance fraud.

As well, we will continue to look for ways to protect the consumer. We are working to improve the availability of the public driver record to the insurance industry. By making driving convictions easily available, the industry will have the information it needs to fairly and accurately price auto insurance. In turn, we hope this will benefit good drivers and bring their cost of auto insurance down.

We believe the combined efforts of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Transportation will result in a significant improvement to auto insurance and road safety.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's my pleasure to reply to the statement of the two ministers today. I listened carefully to the finance minister and his remarks and at the same time I was thinking of what Mike Harris said in February 1990: "I don't believe in no-fault. The name offends me. I was brought up to be responsible for my actions and I think the court system and lawyers are necessary to protect victims. I take a look at the repair industry and the car industry." Then he went on to say, in February 1995, "A Harris government will return to a system based on the no-fault principle, living up to the commitments we made during the debate on Bill 164."

I believe that today we have a return, as the Premier said, notwithstanding that he corrected himself, to the no-fault system. But it's what I don't see in the remarks by the minister this afternoon that I would like to bring to the government's attention. I'm surprised that I don't see the repeal of the 5% sales tax on auto insurance, which would have been an immediate break for the hundreds of thousands of insureds in this province. I don't see any commitment in the minister's speech to lowering or holding premiums. During the hearings, we heard that the insurance rates may increase from 7% to 10%.

The minister hasn't repudiated that here, so I hope we're not looking for increases of 35% to 40% over the next five years.

We listened to Ontarians, as the government did, because we, the opposition, were in those hearings as well. I look at the minister's statement where he says, "We expect that those savings will be reflected in more stable rates for the consumer over the long term." Well, Ontarians are tired of increased insurance rates. They not only want reduction in rates over the long term, they want reduction in rates over the short term.

Interjections: Now.

Mr Crozier: They want them now. This doesn't provide that.

They're going to establish an Ombudsman, and that would indicate to me that there's some concern about their confidence in their legislation. To hear the minister speak, this was going to solve all the problems in the auto insurance industry in the province of Ontario, and yet they're going to create another body, regulatory or at least semi-regulatory, in that it's an Ombudsman who will look over the industry.

It says that they will promise reduced rates to retirees. I'm pleased to see that. It doesn't say that it's going to be to accident-free or retirees with accidents, so I should warn the retirees out there today that if you have had minor violations, minor accidents in the past couple of years, you're not likely to see a reduction in your insurance rates.

It's not only what the minister has said today, it's what he hasn't said today that we are concerned about and that we'll be looking forward to in the next few weeks hopefully at additional public hearings, because if this legislation has changed substantially from what was in their white paper, we think it's incumbent then that the government go to the public and that we have an opportunity for the public to comment on the actual legislation that this government proposes.

With regard to the Minister of Transportation's comments, we look forward to any move that will reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the roads in the province of Ontario. It would appear by his statement that it says when police pull over a vehicle they will have up-to-date information. Minister, with the technology that we have today, when an insured either cancels or has his insurance lapse, we think there should be immediate contact with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and that a cancellation or a suspension of a driver's licence and/or ownership for a vehicle should go out immediately.

That will be the real way to get uninsured drivers off the roads and make our roads safer in Ontario.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have to say that it's very difficult to respond to this announcement today because basically there's been no information provided to the Legislature. I imagine when we see the bill this afternoon we'll be able to judge the minister's statement that they have in fact listened to Ontarians and are today responding to their concerns. I would have to say, from listening to the statements made in the House, that the vast majority of the concerns that ordinary Ontarians brought before the standing committee have not been addressed, have not been listened to, and in fact we're not going to see the government's main commitments lived up to.

Let me just highlight those again for people. The minister said today, "We believe that our changes will provide the environment for healthy competition in the marketplace and stabilize premiums over the long term," that they're going to take aggressive action against fraud and they're going to restore the right of innocent accident victims to sue. I want to highlight those because I believe perhaps the first part of the statement is true -- they're creating a healthy environment for the marketplace -- but I don't believe they're going to deliver on any of the others.

Let me take the first issue, which is on rate stability. We know that the government stated in the Common Sense Revolution and in the days after the election that its goal was to ensure that there would not be continuing increases in automobile insurance premiums. When asked what that meant -- "What does rate stability mean?" -- the parliamentary assistant made it very clear in response to my question that he's talking about effectively no increase at all. Now we see in the paper that he's talking about doing some work to ensure that the trend line comes down. Well, that's very different than effectively no increase. I think we know the reason for it.

The parliamentary assistant and the minister released their discussion paper, their white paper on auto insurance, without having done the actuarial studies beforehand, and then got broadsided by the industry and found out that their proposals, with the reintroduction of tort and all of the contingency fees and lawyer fees, were simply going to reduce benefits for accident victims and increase the amount of money going to lawyers, and we would continue to see fees go up in the province.

What we have here is some minor tinkering and moving around of the pieces, at least as it's been announced today; no clear indication of how rates are going to be stabilized; in fact a repositioning on that commitment, a repositioning to say, "We're just going to bring the trend lines down." Not good enough, Mr Minister. We'll look forward to seeing the actual legislation and what's contained therein.

Then they talk about taking aggressive action against fraud -- certainly welcome.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Would the House come to order.

Ms Lankin: They say they're going to take aggressive action against fraud. While we certainly welcome the initiatives with respect to uninsured drivers, that's just a minor step. As was said by the fraud bureau, the people who have done the research into this, this bill just tinkers with respect to anti-fraud protection.

They asked for legislative guarantees that insurance companies would have to take on this issue of fraud, report their write-offs, not pass it on in the premium fees -- that they would have to take some internal responsibility. We don't see any of that addressed here.

Of course, your commitment in terms of return of the right of tort really isn't a return of an improvement for accident victims; it's simply reintroducing lawyers into the system, the way in which you have tightened up and the way in which you have put limits on economic loss, for example, of 85%. You fail in all of the key promises you've made.

You also don't seem to address the issues of conflict of interest, the issues of access to rehabilitation for all the accident victims who we heard didn't get adequate access now. Your commitment to do something about Facility Association is not contained here. Once that's done, that's going to put upward pressure on premiums. No road safety initiatives. You didn't listen.

The bottom line is, if this bill doesn't have more in content than the minister's statement, you haven't listened. Don't expect us to comply with quick passage of this. This needs to have public hearings. This needs to be reviewed in a meaningful way. If you're going to do it and fix it again, get it right this time. Don't expect us to cooperate with a sham that is not going to stabilize rates.

The Speaker: Further response? The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): In these few seconds, I'm going to do my best.

It's a little bit of déjà vu all over again. I'm hard pressed to listen to a Liberal member talk about insurance reform when I recall, oh, so clearly, "Yes, I have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums." The fact is, David Peterson and the Liberals couldn't do it. The fact is that Mike Harris and the Tories aren't going to be able to do it either.

The insurance industry continues to have short arms and deep pockets. It's a greedy, voracious industry that will be allowed to continue to prey on drivers and innocent victims in this province. Let's face it, this government was as disinclined as any prior government to make the real reform, which is to create a public auto insurance system. That's the only way there's going to be fairness for drivers and justice for victims.

ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, I have a point of personal privilege before the oral question period starts. I want to raise a point with regard to the Speaker. It is an

article that I believe ran in the Ottawa Citizen, the Windsor Star, the London Free Press and the Hamilton Spectator, among others: "Speaker Wants Fines for Unruly MPPs."

The part of the

article that I believe my point of personal privilege is to, and I will quote right from the article: "Mr McLean said there are about five members in each party that cause the most disturbance. Among the worst offenders are Conservative Toronto-area MPP Chris Stockwell, NDP MPP Peter Kormos from Welland-Thorold, and Hamilton East Liberal MPP Dominic Agostino."

I believe that within this House, what we do in here and our behaviour in here is of public record. You as Speaker have the right and the authority within this House to rule members out of order and to simply eject members and do whatever you feel is necessary. But I believe it is inappropriate outside this House in a newspaper

article to point out three members of this House for special attention, as you call it, for the type of behaviour. I believe as Speaker it was inappropriate, it was wrong, and you overstepped your boundaries outside this House by naming them in this article.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I've heard your personal privilege statement. I don't agree with it. However, all members have been out of order. The member for Welland-Thorold.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, you're finished. I've heard your point of personal privilege. I've heard it. The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, if I may: I want to tell you, sir, that I have no objection to being referred to in the superlative, but I do have colleagues in my caucus who resent not having been included in your comments. It's with a whole lot of effort that they've attempted to participate in what have been at times lively debates.

I do share the member's concern about the Speaker's public articulation, singling out people for this particular type of condemnation when at the same time the Speaker can refer to a general tone of unruliness. By singling out people, I believe, Speaker, that you've omitted certain personalities who deserve mention in the list that you referred to in the press. You have offended some of them, I'm sure, and I trust that they'll be speaking in due course to this point of privilege.

It's understood that at times here the House becomes unruly; all of us understand that. I think what the House would expect would perhaps be some evenhandedness -- dare I say it? -- in the Speaker exercising his incredible and unique powers.

Were that evenhandedness prevalent on a consistent basis with respect to all three parties and with respect to all the personalities in the House, the Speaker would not be in a position where he would feel compelled to give public exposure to but one member from each caucus and the Speaker might find himself in a far more comfortable position in dealing with the House that indeed is far more orderly and has a genuine respect for the authority of the Chair.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has a point of order?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Yes, Mr Speaker, listen.

I read that

article as well after it was given to me by equally disgruntled members of my caucus, and frankly I was pleased that you completed a paragraph without a single "dem" or "dose." I guess what I'm suggesting to you is, if you're prepared to start commenting on the abilities and the workmanship of certain members in this House, then you had better be prepared to have them start commenting on your own.

The Speaker: Time for oral question period.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Mr Speaker, could I respectfully request your consideration for -- oh, maybe it is. Thank you. I was looking at the clock and I wondered if oral question period was going to have its full time allotment.

The Speaker: Do you have a question? It's time for oral question period.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege that I believe relates to the privilege of all members, I would ask that you review a rather hasty response to the member of our caucus who raised a very real concern about your singling out members of this Legislature for public comment outside the Legislature itself. I have written to you, Mr Speaker, in response to your letter expressing concerns to each of the leaders about decorum. I hope you will see that my response to you is a sincere effort to make some suggestions that are constructive, but I really do think you need to step back for a moment and revisit your response to Mr Agostino.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, I, like hundreds of thousands of other Ontarians, have a safe driving record and I haven't had an accident claim in the last five years. Can you guarantee me, along with all the other safe drivers in this province, that our auto insurance premiums will not increase in the next year?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I think competition will determine, quite frankly --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I know that's a foreign word in an NDP caucus. However, I believe the product we will be introducing this afternoon by way of tabling legislation will address some of the problems that have arisen over the Liberal Bill 68 and the NDP Bill 164 with respect to auto insurance rates in the province of Ontario and I think that he will find that when this legislation comes into effect, safe drivers will be rewarded for safe driving and those who are at fault will pay, as it should be.

Mr Crozier: The question was, will I get reduced rates? In a release from the Common Sense Revolution dated February 9, 1995, it clearly says, "A Harris plan would reduce and stabilize auto insurance rates."

Minister, by not saying that my rates will be reduced, perhaps what you are saying then -- I'll suggest this and you can comment on it -- is that I will be paying more. I'd like the minister just to simply answer. You say, or imply, that perhaps auto insurance rates will be on the increase, even for safe drivers. If they won't be reduced --

Hon Mr Eves: No, I am not saying that; you are implying that.

Mr Crozier: Well, I'm going to give you the chance, Minister. If they won't be reduced and they won't be stabilized, how much do you expect they will increase for safe drivers in Ontario in the short term?

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member, they are indeed going to be stabilized. They will be reduced for some drivers, the safe drivers in the province of Ontario. I invite the honourable member to come to the media studio after question period today, and industry representatives will be there to answer his question very directly. I assume that after they do, you'll be back in the House tomorrow apologizing for your remarks.

Mr Crozier: Since everyone has heard the minister invite me to the news conference, and he also said that I could ask questions, which I think would be a bit unusual because I believe it's reserved for the press, why, I'd be pleased to come and ask some questions of him. But what you haven't said, Minister, and I'm going to give you one more opportunity to say it in the House before you go to a press conference, is to assure the people of the province of Ontario who have safe driving records that their rates will not increase, as your now Premier said in 1995.

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member, there will be representatives from the insurance industry there. When the press conference is over --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I would like to read to the honourable member, who has a very selective memory, exactly what the commitment was in the Common Sense Revolution, dated February 9, 1995.

"Key to the Harris plan are the following measures:

"1. The repeal of the NDP's Bill 164." Done.

"2. Setting weekly accident benefits at a reasonable level for basic accident compensation coverage." Done.

"3. Facilitating optional benefit `top-up' coverage for those who choose it." Done.

"4. Restoring tort...for significant economic loss in excess of the no-fault benefit." Done.

"5. Modifications to payments for rehabilitation and medical expenses to differentiate between serious and less serious personal injuries." All five done; a heck of a lot better than a guy by the name of David Peterson, who had "a very specific plan" to lower auto insurance premiums in the province of Ontario. You have a lot of nerve even standing in this place and asking a question with your double-digit increased auto insurance premiums.

Mr Crozier: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to give the minister the opportunity to correct the record, because the document he's reading from says --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. He can correct his own record, but you can't correct it.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, before I place my question, and that is in reference to the fact that this is question period: To the best of my understanding, this is the forum provided by the Legislature for our members to place questions to the members of the government. For this minister to say he should come to a press conference at 3:30 because he doesn't have an answer today is offensive and unacceptable.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to return to the issue of care for pregnant women in this province. Minister, yesterday in response to the concern that was raised that obstetricians in Sudbury would no longer be taking new patients, you seemed to attempt to reassure pregnant women by suggesting that our emergency rooms are open and ambulances are on the alert.

This is an appalling, shocking response that shows a complete lack of understanding of the care that pregnant women need from the moment of their pregnancy. Surely you understand that what pregnant women need is ongoing care; they need regular checkups, they need regular blood tests, they may need periodic ultrasounds. There has to be that ongoing care to ensure that there is no unusual course of development in that pregnancy and that the expectant mother remains healthy throughout the term of her pregnancy. Without that kind of ongoing care, pregnant women and their unborn babies are in jeopardy.

Are you suggesting, Minister, in the response you gave yesterday, that women should go to the emergency rooms of hospitals in order to get prenatal care? Are you suggesting that they should have to use hospital emergency wards to get ongoing care throughout their pregnancy?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): We take the threat of the withdrawal of services very seriously and it seems to me that the obstetricians who are threatening withdrawal of services are really doing pick-and-choose medicine. They don't mind doing the prenatal care, they tell me, or the post-natal care; it's just that when the big day comes, for political reasons to make a statement to the government, they're not going to deliver the babies. We've made a very generous offer to them, one of the only sectors I know of in our society today that was offered a raise, and they've declined that offer.

What I don't know is a couple of things. The government of the day disagrees with the job action being threatened by obstetricians. I don't know where the Liberal Party stands on this issue.

Mrs McLeod: I'm raising a concern that I believe is a very serious concern. Newly pregnant women in this province have reason to be very, very worried about their access to the health care they need. I'm not asking the minister to talk to me about his negotiations. I'm not asking him to repeat his accusations that physicians are blackmailing. I'm asking him as the Minister of Health to deal with the issue of concern for pregnant women who cannot get health care -- just that. I'm not raising negotiations with you.

I'm raising a concern that you don't seem to understand how serious this problem is as of today, when another part of your response yesterday was to suggest: "You don't need to worry. You don't need to worry about obstetricians not taking patients because we are training midwives and because family doctors" -- some family doctors -- "are still prepared to take on obstetrical care."

I hope, Minister, that you don't actually believe that that is a substitute for good obstetrical care. I hope you understand that you actually need an obstetrician if you're dealing with a high-risk pregnancy and that you need that obstetrical care throughout the pregnancy. I hope you understand that the obstetrician has to be there if it's going to be a complicated delivery, that the GP can't do that and won't do that, and the midwife is not trained to do that. I hope you understand that, because without obstetrical care, you as Minister of Health can provide absolutely no assurance to pregnant women that their complicated pregnancies or deliveries are going to be managed safely.

I ask whether you understand that the crisis you have created is as of today endangering the health and safety of pregnant women and their unborn babies.

Hon Mr Wilson: We are doing everything we can, including, if the crisis is caused by the debate over the malpractice insurance, we fully restored that insurance. So to keep heckling --

Mrs McLeod: No, you didn't.

Hon Mr Wilson: I did, in an offer last Wednesday night. At 10:30 at night I was told by the obstetrical association, "Not enough, not good enough," was the quote on the other end of the phone. So I don't know what else they want. We responded to their five points. It seems to be a bit of a political statement.

We've asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons to monitor this because it is responsible for the licensing of these individuals, and I fully expect that obstetricians, with the offer on the table, will look after their patients and look after those women who have difficult births or difficult pregnancies. I'll certainly want to be aware of the first obstetrician who refuses to look after a patient in this province.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, that is no answer to women. It is no answer to women who are pregnant today and who don't know if they're going to get the care they need. Minister, it is not a political statement for me to stand here and ask you as Minister of Health to take some responsibility to speak to women who are pregnant and who are not going to get safe care if this issue is not resolved.

You did create the crisis, Minister. All the words aren't going to change that. You created the crisis when you unilaterally withdrew that insurance without any kind of consultation at all. You created the crisis when in Bill 26 you made yourself solely ultimately responsible for setting the fees, which is why you're in there negotiating right now with the obstetricians. You made yourself responsible because you said in Bill 26 that you were going to give yourself the power to take over a hospital board.

Well, you're going to need that power if you're going to take away admitting privileges, which is one of the other threats that you've suggested. You'll take away admitting privileges but you have absolutely no response to the women who need the care.

You talk about emergency rooms and you talk about ambulances and you talk about family doctors and midwives, and you won't deal with the reality that women who are pregnant and their unborn babies will be at risk if you cannot get off your high horse and resolve this issue.

Minister, I ask you to stop playing Russian roulette with the lives and the safety of women and their babies. Will you finally just put aside your game of macho brinkmanship for once and resolve this issue so women and their unborn children are handled safely?

Hon Mr Wilson: The Liberal Party went through this same threat from obstetricians 10 years ago in this province. This is history repeating itself. The Liberal health minister of the day threatened to withdraw hospital privileges. Guess where I got that idea from. I remember those debates when I was an assistant around here. This is not a new tactic on behalf of some of the specialists in the province. We've offered them more money. They're ahead of the money game. That has been our response.

Mrs McLeod: This is no response to the women who need care.

Hon Mr Wilson: I've also assured the women of Ontario that fearmongering shouldn't be part of this equation; that the backup system is there, including hospitals; that we are developing contingency plans to deal with someone withdrawing services. We've asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons to have a serious chat with these obstetricians with respect to their obligations under their specialty licence to fulfil their obligations, both moral, as part of their Hippocratic oath, and as part of their licensing requirements, to fully serve the women of this province.

This government is not abandoning the women of the province. That is clear in this issue. I don't know whether the NDP or the Liberal Party agree or disagree with the actions of the obstetricians. I disagree. The obstetricians in this case are holding women to ransom over an issue of dispute with the government. I'd like to know where the Liberal Party and the NDP stand on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The NDP believes that the minister has created a crisis and now he doesn't know how to get out of it.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): My question is to the Attorney General. In regard to the Ipperwash issue, I note that apparently now all of the aboriginal people charged by police in conjunction with the incidents there have been acquitted.

In returning to the issue of what happened on the government's side, or did not happen on the government's side, we know that the blockade committee met on September 5 and, according to the minister's own briefing note, there was a suggestion that ministerial direction should be sought in connection with the occupation of Ipperwash park. The cabinet met on September 6. The blockade committee also met again on September 6. Could you tell us in this House if there were any discussions among politicians about getting the aboriginal protestors out of the park, in briefings or in informal discussions, after the occupation and before the shooting of Dudley George?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As I indicated last week, the discussion revolved around an explanation as to what had occurred at Ipperwash. To the best of my knowledge, in the meeting the member refers to and subsequently, there was discussion about legal options that might be available. There was a discussion and ultimately an attempt to obtain -- and in fact it was obtained -- a civil injunction to deal with the occupation and to hopefully peaceably end the occupation.

Mr Wildman: It appears that the Attorney General has talked about the blockade committee discussions, but he has not dealt with the question around the possibility of discussions among politicians or in cabinet. This, after all, was what the member for Lambton referred to as the largest police operation he'd ever seen in his constituency. He was apparently at the police command post the day of the incident, prior to the incident.

Last week I asked the Premier to request the minister responsible for native affairs to investigate, to find out who, if anyone, said, "Get the" -- expletive -- "Indians out of the park." Subsequent to that, last week my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine asked the minister if he had looked into who made this offensive comment, but the minister did not answer the question. Let me remind the Attorney General that the Premier said, "I don't mind inquiring to find out if anyone knows if it happened," that is, if the comment was made.

Will the minister report to the House on what he has done to investigate who made this offensive remark, if it was made, and when it was made? Whom have you asked? Whom have you checked with? What have you come up with? Why don't you report back?

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell you I have no information as to the fact that remark was ever made. I have no knowledge that remark was ever made. In addition, I will say what I also said to the leader of the third party last week, and that is, this matter was dealt with by the Ontario Provincial Police. They dealt with it on the basis of their police practices. There was no political involvement in terms of what the police were doing at Ipperwash.

Mr Wildman: I wanted the minister to tell us how he investigated subsequent to the Premier indicating that he was quite happy to have the minister investigate.

We know that on September 6, Chief Bressette went on a Sarnia radio station to warn aboriginal people, specifically the protestors in the park, that it was his information there had been a meeting in the Premier's office and that an order had been given. Someone, somewhere, somehow gave Chief Bressette the idea that a decision had been made for a police buildup that would remove people from the park.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You're dreaming.

Mr Wildman: Perhaps Chief Bressette was dreaming. I want to know how he came to be in this dream. He doesn't just go on the radio and make things up. He was worried there was going to be a confrontation. He had information. He had been warned. The question is, who gave him the information and where did that information come from? We want to know if there were any opinions expressed in the Premier's office or in cabinet or in other meetings, formal or informal, that could have been interpreted to give direction to the OPP to confront the protestors at Ipperwash. Where is your investigation? Will you not report to us?

Hon Mr Harnick: I will say again that there was no political direction whatsoever given to the Ontario Provincial Police. I will also say that those matters the member raises are subject to an investigation that the special investigations unit is undertaking. I believe it would be imprudent to deal with what might be part of an SIU investigation and which might well jeopardize any conclusions the SIU comes to. I'd advise the leader of the third party that this is a very real concern.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister knows full well that the SIU is not investigating political involvement; the SIU is investigating police action.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. New question.

SECURITY SERVICE

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Today we read in the Toronto Star about a company in the United States, Vance International, that is planning to expand into Ontario to take advantage of the new business climate under the Mike Harris government. This company, whose president is former US secret service agent Chuck Vance, is planning to hire about 200 people and believes much of his work will be in the greater Toronto area.

This particular company's employees come outfitted in body armour, helmets and shields. That's because their main business is providing security for scabs in the wave of violent strikes and lockouts that Mr Vance is expecting in Ontario. Mr Vance says that there was no need for his company under the NDP government when replacement workers or scabs were not allowed, but now, "If `a plant continues to operate, then there is the potential for violence,' Vance said."

The only thing this company apparently is waiting for is provincial government approval for its application to operate a security service. Is this the kind of business climate the Mike Harris government is creating in Ontario?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I will refer that question to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I'm pleased to respond to the question. I would simply like to indicate that this company has indicated that it is moving to the Ottawa community. They've indicated that part of the reason they're doing this is because they will be providing security service for diplomats. Part of their service also is in the prevention of violence on picket lines. They concentrate very heavily on the resolution of disputes before we have violence on the picket lines.

Mr Silipo: The reason I asked the Minister of Economic Development this question was because I wanted to talk to him about the business climate his government is creating. I'm saddened that as the minister responsible for that he chose to defer the question.

But since the Minister of Labour has taken on the question, let's talk a little bit about this particular company, because Vance International has put its expertise to use at such high-profile US strikes as Caterpillar Inc and the Detroit newspaper strikes. There's a photo in the newspaper today showing the company's expertise at dealing with the media; in this case, the Detroit newspaper strikes' violence on the picket lines. According to the article, Chuck Vance believes he would do a better job than the OPP riot squad which clashed with OPSEU strikers here on March 18. He's expecting picket violence to increase, creating a boom market for this type of service in the province.

Is Mr Vance right? Will this government's policies be creating hundreds of jobs for American scab protection companies to battle with Ontario workers, or will your government do the right thing and refuse to grant approval for this company to operate its strikebreaking service here in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think the member opposite understands and realizes that we have had a history of peaceful labour relations in this province. We do not anticipate that this is going to change, and we've already seen evidence of this. This was indicated to be a year where there might be some problems. However, we have seen labour and management deal with the collective agreements; we've seen them deal with the bargaining situation in a very responsible way this year. We've already had Ontario Hydro come to a resolution as to how it can resolve its dispute. We've seen the Toronto Transit Commission resolve its problems, we've seen Kitchener Transit resolve its issues and we've seen Stelco.

I am confident that the employees and the employers in this province will continue to resolve their problems in a very peaceful manner. We're certainly seeing it this year. We're seeing as well new jobs being created as a result of the fact that we repealed Bill 40, we introduced Bill 7 and we now have an investment climate that has induced firms like Magna to come into this province and create new jobs. We've seen over 60,000 new jobs in the last three months. You never saw any job creation at all. There were fewer jobs in 1995 than there were in 1989.

Mr Silipo: The minister's answer tells me just how out of touch she really is with the reality that's going on out there, because if she wants to talk about peaceful labour relations, she need only look back at the days of Bill 40, when we had the most peaceful time in terms of labour relations in this province. That's a situation that's changing day after day with the actions of this government, because the record of economic damage from your government's provocative approach to labour relations is beginning to emerge.

Because of your new labour laws, we're now seeing an encouragement of scabs. It appears, for example, that the Breeders' Cup may decide not to come to Ontario this fall, costing our economy many millions of dollars. This week we've also seen the numbers released for days lost to strikes and lockouts in the first four months of 1996. The total for January, February, March and April is 1.253 million days lost to work stoppages. Under Bill 40, not only did we have labour peace, but we also had the lowest number of days lost to strikes since the province started keeping records.

At the rate you're going, Minister, 1996 will set the record for most days lost to strikes ever on record. No wonder you're going to need Vance International and companies like that to move into Ontario with their scab protection services.

But the question to ask is, is this what the business climate needs in this province? Is it really what good businesses want and need? When will your government realize that this provocative approach will not work and when will you stop the use of companies like Vance International as the way to deal with labour disputes in this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would suggest that you take a look at the facts, and if you know the facts, you will also know that this is a year when many collective agreements come up for renewal. Obviously, we're going to see an increase in activity.

But I would indicate to you that at the present time we are continuing to see labour peace and we actually are seeing a situation for the first time in this province where we are seeing new jobs created for the people in this province. For the first time, we are seeing hope and we are seeing optimism. There is a feeling of confidence in the actions of this government.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Transportation and it concerns the safety record of the trucking company that was previously owned by his colleague the Minister of Education and Training.

Yesterday the Premier referred to the government documents about the Minister of Education's former appalling safety record as something that may or may not be true. He also said that even if it was true, he didn't know whether it was a particularly bad or good record.

Minister, you have now had 24 hours to verify that the document I had yesterday was exactly what I said it was, a document issued by your ministry that sets out the abysmal safety record of a trucking firm while it was owned by your now colleague. I assume you have done that. I also assume you have checked the record of that same company prior to 1991, which was something your ministry was not prepared to divulge to us.

So, Minister, I ask you how you would characterize a company with a record that includes 107 convictions for safety violations, 28 accidents and 26 incidents involving equipment problems that were so severe that the trucks had to be pulled off the road. Would you not agree this is a company that has shown flagrant, repeated and reckless contempt for the laws of this province and the safety of its people?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I believe that this government has done more for truck safety in one year than the previous two governments have done in the last 10.

I would like to remind the honourable member that as Minister of Transportation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any specific individual as far as their safety record is concerned. I want to say that the entire commercial vehicle registration inspection system is handled through our enforcement officers, so I have no direct contact per se for me to find out or any reason for me to find out about a specific individual.

We have hired more enforcement staff in the last year. We will be raising fines to make sure that truck safety is done.

The member is more interested in the past than in the present. I want to show and share with the members what this government really wants to do as far as safety is concerned. As far as the question the member has asked me about why we do not have, why they were refused, records past 1991, it was her government that authorized, that brought in legislation only for the last five years. Those records are not available, not because they weren't made available --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Let me first of all assure the minister, if he's uncomfortable about commenting, that he's not only free to comment; that he is required to comment. These are public records of his own ministry. It's fair to ask him to comment.

If the minister would like to know how his officials characterized this record, I can tell him that they describe it as a very serious record. Since the minister wants to direct his attention exclusively to the past year and this government's commitment to do so much for trucking safety in the past year, let us focus on the record of this company, formerly owned by your colleague, in the past year, a period when your colleague was minister and before he sold the company. The company continued to chalk up violations during that period, when the Minister of Education and Training was in cabinet and still had control of the company.

In the two-month period from June 26 until August 31, 1995, when Jarsno Equipment was sold, the company recorded two safety convictions and had two vehicles detained for faulty equipment. On August 29, 1995, a vehicle was detained because of poor tire conditions, the type of problem that has led to several deaths on our highways during the past few years. Since the minister sold Jarsno, the firm has been involved in four other accidents and convicted of eight safety violations.

You are aware that there are steps your ministry can take to force this company to clean up its act. It could bring out audits, warning letters; it could call the owners in for review; sanctions; and finally, it could cancel operating permits. Minister, you talk a good game; you were out talking a good fight at your photo op today. I want to ask you very specifically about Jarsno: What steps have you taken to deal with the appalling record of safety violations of this company when it was owned by the Minister of Education and, subsequent to that, will Jarsno be part of your crackdown?

Hon Mr Palladini: I say to the honourable member once again that the issue is not the record of one particular company or one driver but of all our roads: safety on our highways. This is the commitment we have as a government and that we want to do. We are going to maintain that commitment and do the things that are necessary, and some of the things your government was not able to do we're going to deliver. I wish I could add more, but I really can't; there's nothing else that I could add.

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Today you gave a speech at the clean air summit at Metro Hall and, as you know, I was there to hear it. We had hoped very much that you would announce a mandatory vehicle emission testing program to protect our air, our water and our health. Unfortunately we were disappointed that you refused to do so.

Yesterday people in our province heard once again about the poor quality of our air. I would like to congratulate Pollution Probe for doing such a good job in providing information about the issue.

By now Ontarians know that car exhaust is part of our smog problem. They expect the government to act to protect human health. Minister, I'm going to give you another chance today. On the day of the municipal clean air summit, will you announce your intention to do the right thing? Will you commit to a mandatory vehicle emission testing program today?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think the very last part of my colleague's question is particularly important; she said a "municipal air summit." This is a summit from people in this whole area, from various governing bodies throughout the Metro area and the greater Toronto area looking for solutions, because they recognize this is a very complex problem. This is not an easy fix by a mandatory program, which you keep referring to all the time. You had every opportunity to do it and you chose not to. You put a voluntary program in place.

At that speech, I said we're looking for many solutions. That summit is about finding creative solutions to a very complex problem. It's not just Ontario's problem; it extends all across the country.

Ms Churley: Minister, you're totally wrong. You have your information wrong. The NDP government brought in a voluntary pilot project with the full intention of turning it into a mandatory program. As you know, the time is now up for that program. The next step, which our government committed to, was to turn it into a mandatory program. What you have done is to extend it over the course of the summer, I guess to help get you through the difficult smoggy months of summer. The reality is that the time to do it is now. There's no excuse for turning back. You are the government now. It is your responsibility and your turn.

Minister, you know of the support from the Lung Association and Pollution Probe, but you might also know that such a program run by the private sector is also supported by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Auto Workers and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. Most importantly, it is supported by Ontarians who want to have clean air.

What are you waiting for? For more people to die from bad air? I'm giving you another chance now before the Premier moves you out of your cabinet post. Stand up to him --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question has been asked.

Hon Mrs Elliott: I'm hearing words from a colleague across the floor who was part of a government that would bankrupt this province, who has no understanding of the complexities of the balance between environment and economy. You only need to look at somewhere like the eastern bloc to find out what happens to the environment when the economy goes bankrupt.

With regard to a mandatory program, the program that was put in place as a voluntary program was one of the most expensive possible. It was intended to be part of a private sector program, but the way it's been set up to date is so expensive no private sector person could possibly take it on. What we're trying to do is figure how to make it practical, because in order for it to be effective it absolutely must work.

BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Many of the businesses in my riding are represented by either the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or the Canadian Exporters' Association. These two business associations have long histories of assisting companies to expand their opportunities at home and abroad. Can the minister advise the House of any recent developments regarding the associations?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): To the member for Etobicoke-Humber, I'd like to say I'm very glad he's asked the question because it is a very important subject, particularly when Ontario is now recognized as the most important province in this country as both a manufacturer and as an exporting province.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association was formed 25 years ago and its mandate was to promote Canadian industries and to further the interest of Canadian manufacturers and exporters. Fifty-three years ago, the Canadian Exporters' Association was formed to promote Canadian international business and to advance the interest of exporters.

On May 30, 1996, these two respected organizations joined together. I know the alliance is going to operate very well and continue to serve in the finest tradition that its predecessors have done.

Mr Ford: What do you as Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism think of the new association and its role in the business world?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'd like to say that this is a very significant new alliance. It makes great sense for two great organizations to come together. It's in keeping with the new business culture that those people over there don't understand, and that is doing better for less. We're very pleased to also have the support of this alliance. They are supportive of our government's approach to doing business, and we'll certainly be supporting them as well.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and it involves the subject that we talked about at a meeting last August, that being the allocation of moose tags in the province of Ontario. The minister has received, as I have, many, many calls regarding the system, calls from resident hunters, outfitters and lodge owners, and the minister will realize how important the hunt is for its economic implications to northwestern Ontario. As I indicated, the minister has heard the problems as well.

Minister, the system, as you agreed, is outdated. It is an unfair system. I have a resident in my riding who has been looking for a tag for some 17 years and has been unsuccessful. At this time I would like to know what changes you plan to propose for the draw system coming up for this hunt.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the question from the member of the opposition. The fundamental problem here is we have more hunters than we have moose and that's a fact of life. I wish there was a simple, easy answer to this.

I hear a member from the third party saying that he's been elected on this issue for five consecutive elections. I can tell you, if there's an easy answer to it, we'll find it. All we can do is maybe set up a process to re-examine this issue. We've done counts this year to try to get the actual numbers for a moose area. We're going to have to have some consultation with the affected groups. The system itself was set up, I think with the best intentions to be fair, with a lottery system. If it needs to be changed, we're open to suggestions.

Mr Miclash: I understand that we have more hunters than we have moose, and that's the reason I'm asking the question, because we also have a draw system. The minister very, very clearly made a commitment to me last August that the system would be reviewed, that there was a need for change. The minister, in the election document A Voice for the North, indicated during the campaign: "Hunting and fishing are an important of the northern lifestyle, a fact that is often lost on government bureaucrats in the south."

Minister, you know that the deadline for applications was on May 15. The applications are in your office; the hunters are waiting. What I'm looking for is what I can tell them about the new draw system that you suggested we needed in this province. What can I tell the person who has gone without a moose tag for the past 17 years? What can I tell the outfitters who are looking for the tags that will ensure that the economy of northwestern Ontario will get a positive experience from the hunt this fall?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I mentioned earlier, the moose draw presently is done on a lottery system, and there are different pools; so the person who hasn't got one for 17 years is extremely unlucky. That's the honest answer, you can tell him.

What I can tell you about the changes that should happen is that you can become involved in a process this summer for consultation on it. Maybe we'll set up another pool for people who haven't received it for a number of years, or other options to try to make it fair and equitable and also help the economy of northern Ontario. We'll set that process up this summer. It's a complicated issue; there's not a quick fix to it.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): It's with some trepidation that I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. My question to the minister has to do with a decision he announced I think about six weeks ago about the closing of fire bases all across northern Ontario -- not in his own riding, I might add, but in other parts of northern Ontario.

At the time we questioned the minister's judgement, and a lot of other people did as well, because we don't believe you can close that number of fire bases and adequately protect the forest resource in northern Ontario. We also have concerns about the safety of firefighters and communities in those remote areas.

Now it looks as though our concerns were justified because of reports coming out of Gogama, which happens to be in my own constituency, that some MNR crews spent more than 24 hours fighting a 130-hectare forest fire near Shining Tree, which is also in my constituency. They ended up coming out of the bush to Gogama, where there used to be a fire base, to use the phone because they were unable to make radio contact to call for backup help; it wouldn't reach Timmins. Furthermore, the crew had not even been fed for 24 hours.

Can you assure this House that there are no crews out there fighting fires with no radio contact and will you admit that your decision to close all those fire bases, such as the one in Gogama, was a mistake?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I can check into the specifics of the question. I'm assured that this plan will work. If there's an emergency fire situation in a remote area where there was a work station before, we'll be able to take advantage of that, but when there are not fires around, we won't be staffing the people to reside there and to ship equipment back and forth.

I'll check out the specifics on your allegation that the fire crews had to come out and use the phone and that they weren't fed. I'll check that out.

Mr Laughren: The issue has been all across the north for the last number of days. I'm astounded that the minister doesn't know about this.

We've had reports that equipment which was needed to fight that fire and which would normally have been in Gogama, where the fire base was, had to be airlifted from Sudbury to Timmins and then trucked back to Gogama. It's a farce and it would be really funny if it wasn't so serious, but it really is ludicrous. On this issue you have raised incompetence to an art form. That's how silly it has become.

As well, you've now hired back, we understand, people you had laid off just three weeks ago, hired them back on contract to help fight fires, so they're not as surplus as you seemed to think they were. The people who are hired to fight fires -- and I wouldn't take advice from the Chair of Management Board, if I were you. What he knows about fighting fires you could write on the head of a pin.

The people and the equipment --

Interjections.

Mr Laughren: I know the Tories are very sensitive about this.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would the members come to order. I can't hear the member's question.

Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, they're your colleagues, not mine. They're not my colleagues, they're yours, so you deal with them.

Interjections.

Mr Laughren: I think the clowns have taken over, Mr Speaker.

The people and the equipment that we need to fight fires need to be strategically located, not riding around in airplanes and pickup trucks, because that's exactly what's happening. You've created a mess. It's your mess; you created it. You have to solve it. I'm asking you now, will you put your ego aside and revoke the order that you issued a few weeks ago to close those fire bases?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The plan that was outlined and announced a few weeks ago was intended to save $4 million on the operating dollars. At that time what we committed to do was, if there was a heavy fire season or a need, we would make sure the resources were there to meet that demand. It's a very serious issue. You've mentioned how we brought staff back to meet the demand.

I want to tell you that $4 million in savings might be minor to previous budgets, but that's a significant saving and we can still deliver a quality service. If there need to be improvements in it, I can assure you that ego or other things won't stand in the way of that. We're always looking to improve upon how we deliver government services, and we'll take a look at that.

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. All over the streets of this city you can see the long lines of white panel trucks, tractor-trailers and cube trucks. Film production season is under way in this province, and by the looks of things business is thriving. What is the government doing to ensure that this business stays in Ontario and continues to provide good-quality jobs to the people of this province?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I'd like to thank the honourable member for Scarborough Centre for that excellent question. By introducing a refundable film and tax credit in the budget, as announced by the Honourable Mr Eves, our government is demonstrating its commitment to the film and television production industry in this province.

This morning I had a breakfast meeting with more than 60 key leaders from the television and film production industry. Those industry representatives are most excited and committed to a viable and healthy film and television industry for this province. As well, they are committed to working with this government to find ways to make this industry a leader in the economic recovery of this province.

The refundable tax credit is based on a percentage of the project's eligible labour expenses and eligible production financing. It is estimated that in its first full year of operation the tax credit will inject $15 million back into the Ontario film and television production community.

This tax credit system is based on our belief that government should reward initiative. We're moving from simply providing cash grants and writing cheques to a permanent job creation --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Wrap up your answer. Supplementary.

Mr Newman: What role will the Ontario Film Development Corp play in the development of this tax credit?

Hon Ms Mushinski: The OFDC will play a key role in administering the tax credit, as well as developing program objectives. This will include the development of criteria measurements, certifying eligible applicants and productions, and verifying labour and production expenditures. The Ministry of Finance will be responsible for administering the eligible applicants' tax filing and for administering the credits and the refunds.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. In the budget your government outlined that you and the Minister of Municipal Affairs would jointly look at fairness in local government financing. Last week, the Minister of Municipal Affairs made the announcement that your panel will look at property tax assessment reform and the larger issue of education funding.

However, your panel does not have any direct representation from the educational sector; I repeat, does not have any representation from the educational sector. Surely you will agree that this panel could have a very serious and important impact on education and how it is funded. In light of this, will you make sure that the education sector, which you are supposedly responsible to represent in cabinet, will have at least two direct representatives on this panel?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the honourable member opposite for the question, which is of course very relevant to my portfolio and which doesn't attack any of the hard-working people involved in another industry that I used to be involved with. I appreciate, sir, that your question is on target and relevant to the future of the province.

I believe the honourable member can be reassured that the education community will be allowed to, and I'm sure will, make representations about the future of funding and governance for the system. We are committed to making funding changes. We believe that the funding situation currently in the province does not allow for a fair opportunity for all our students and we intend to have a funding system that does.

I remind the honourable member opposite that we will use studies that have already been done on the funding of our education system, that there's already been input from all stakeholders in education across the province. I believe it is now time and my colleagues believe it is now time for some action.

Mr Patten: Minister, you didn't answer the question. The question was, would you have direct representation on the main panel? I would imagine that you would look at educational studies and you would hear people from education. The point is that this was presented as a joint effort with you and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's clear, however, that on at least this issue cabinet has marginalized you and therefore the educational sector, because who is going to make the series of recommendations? It seems to me your government's priorities are clear: economics over education.

Do you intend to allow a panel of representatives from municipalities to tell everyone in the education system how to do their job? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Your panel is supposed to find out who does what and who knows what. Will you ensure that at least two more members of the education sector sit on the main panel? By the way, you may recall my friend the member for Kenora suggesting yesterday that there be some representation from northern Ontario, because this is a panel for all of Ontario, not just for Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I welcome the question from the honourable member opposite. To be honest with you, because the honourable member usually has very outstanding questions, today I'm a little surprised and a little confused that he doesn't seem to be able to connect funding and economics and finance. It seems to me there's a fairly straight line. We are dealing with billions and billions of tax dollars, and I believe that needs a very serious look. We're committed to a system, to a funding for our school system which will provide an equal opportunity for all students across Ontario, and that's the driver in that end of the process.

We are also looking, overall and holistically, at all funding mechanisms of different services provided by municipal and provincial governments. This panel has been empowered to look at all those issues. If I believe at any point that more people representing more segments of the education system or people from the west or the east or the north need to be put on the committee, that can be done. We will do this to make decisions that need to be made for the future of this province. That is our commitment.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The time for oral question period has expired.

COMMENTS OF MINISTER OF HEALTH

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd ask for your guidance. The Minister of Health today said he had offered to reinstate the malpractice insurance premiums for doctors in this province. I understand that is not factual, that he has not offered that reinstatement, and I ask that he either correct the record or withdraw the statement he made in the House.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I have no idea whether it's accurate or whether it's not.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: The honourable member has accused me essentially of lying to the House, which I have not done. She should not be allowed to do that. She sat down and said, "You've not told the truth." The record is clear that we offered to pay the insurance premiums, and then some, to the obstetricians of this province.

The Speaker: It has been brought to my attention by the member that he indicates that the House was misled, and would the member please withdraw it.

Mrs Caplan: No, I did not use the word "misled." I said the Minister of Health said he had offered to reinstate the Canadian Medical Protective Association premiums. He has not done that. That is therefore not a factual statement, and his bullying tactics are not going to solve the problem.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I clearly heard the member say that the minister must tell the truth in the House, not make any allegations, not impute any motive.

May I point out, given that it has been raised in this House with respect to fair treatment, that the minister stood, the minister made a clarification, a statement on the record, and yet you don't allow the member opposite to do the same. The rules have to be the same, one for the other, Mr Speaker. We're not getting that fair treatment from you at this point.

We have a very significant issue in difference in terms of what obstetricians are saying has happened with respect to these negotiations and the information the minister is providing us in this House. We don't know what the truth is.

The Speaker: I listened to both of them and I'm not sure what the facts are of the answers or the questions, so I can't indicate anything until I have a look at the Hansard to find out what was said. I don't know.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Because the member for Oriole asked for your guidance in raising it, as I heard your response when the Minister of Health rose in rebuttal -- and that's all I can describe it as -- you then informed this House that the Minister of Health had said he had not misled the House and therefore asked the member for Oriole to withdraw. You made a judgement as to whether the minister had or had not misled the House. You entered into the debate, and I guess the question is --

The Speaker: Order. No, we had a problem here a while ago, and I said any member who indicated that somebody else was not telling the truth was to be brought to my attention immediately. The minister got up and indicated what was said, which I am not fully aware of, because I haven't seen Hansard. Until I see Hansard I won't know.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If you check Hansard what you will see is that I clearly said the minister has an obligation to tell the truth. I stand by that. I believe he has an obligation to tell the truth --

The Speaker: I'll review Hansard and see what was said. That's all.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, when you review Hansard, I think the important aspect of the point that has been raised, I think the issue is that the honourable member for Oriole, through her question and her point, accused the Minister of Health of lying in this House. That is the point of order that is before you. The fact that we have different opinions about what was said outside of this place we have no control over, but we do have control over a former Minister of Health, or any member, accusing a current member of this cabinet of lying.

Ms Lankin: On a related point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to point out to you that this has occurred twice now. You listened in fullness to the comments by the Minister of Health. You listened in fullness to the comments by the member for Mississauga South. You did not interrupt either one of them. Their microphones were on for the entire portion of their statements, which will be fully recorded on Hansard.

May I indicate to you that with both the member for Oriole and the Leader of the Official Opposition you rose in the middle of their comments on both occasions, you cut them off, and the last interjection by the member for Oriole, which you sat in your seat and listened to but never recognized her, will not be on Hansard at all because the mike never came on.

This is of considerable importance if there is going to be a judgement that will be ruled on on the basis of reviewing Hansard, that there is fair treatment in terms of your listening to the representations put forward by members so that they are on the record in Hansard and you can appropriately review them and then make a judgement.

QUESTION PERIOD

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on a different matter, I suppose somewhat related. It's related to question period. Believe me, as one of the table officers I understand the difficulties you can encounter in the chair sometimes. My point of order is on question period. I was on number 5 for a question on the very important Women's March Against Poverty and was fully expecting that it would come around to that.

I recognize that partly the reason why we got behind today was the general noise in the House, but the Minister of Education, on the last question from a Liberal member, was clearly, in my view, talking out the clock at the end, was not making any sense whatsoever.

I would ask you to try to pay attention to when members of the government tend to be on a question when we're getting near the end of the clock -- because this was a very important question to me and the women of Ontario -- that you take note of that and make them sit down before the time has run out. What this means is that I was unable to ask this question which people were expecting today.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I thank the honourable member for Riverdale for her point of order. I do try to be fair; I'll do my best.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I seek your direction on this. It happened during question period where my colleague the member for Essex South asked the Minister of Finance a question and the Minister of Finance said -- I'm paraphrasing now, but I think Hansard would support this. I think the Minister of Finance said, "If you want an answer to that question, come to the press conference that we're holding at 3:30."

My point with you, Mr Speaker, is this: The public, I think, expect that this one hour of question period is an opportunity for their elected members to ask questions of the government and for the government to respond here in this forum, not to say, "If you want an answer to that question, you should come to a press conference later on."

I think it's important because the House very much relies on this forum; I think the public very much rely on this forum. It's the first time, frankly, I've heard a minister say, "If you want an answer to a question, come to a press conference." I wonder, Mr Speaker, if I might ask that you could look into this matter for us and provide any advice you can to the House.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I would like to point out to the honourable member that what I said was that industry representatives will be there and the honourable member will be more than able to talk to those industry representatives and see what their particular company's position is with respect to the legislation I will be introducing shortly.

Having said that, the honourable member may be interested to know that Zurich insurance company advises that its reduction will be 3% to 5%; Allstate's will be 5%; Dominion of Canada will be --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: Mr Speaker, did you indicate that you would be responding?

The Speaker: I have no jurisdiction over whether they have news releases or news media releases before or after question period. That's totally out of my hands. If you're not happy with his answer, there's nothing I can do about that.

PETITIONS

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the assembly of Ontario which is specifically directed to the Solicitor General of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the Dellcrest Children's Centre is planning to open a 10-bed open custody residence for troubled children and youth at 182 Dowling Avenue; and

"Whereas the residence is an inappropriate site for the rehabilitation of troubled children and youth because it is within walking distance to illicit drug and prostitution activities; a large number of unsupervised and supervised rooming houses that are home to ex-psychiatric patients, parolees and our society's most vulnerable and ostracized members; and a number of licensed establishments that have been charged with various liquor infractions; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Dellcrest Children's Centre have decided not to hold open discussions with our community prior to the purchase of this house for the purpose of an open custody residence; and

"Whereas the decision to relocate also expresses a total lack of regard towards our community's consistent and well-documented wishes for the Ontario government to stop the creation or relocation of additional social service programs or offices in an area that is already oversaturated with health and social services for disadvantaged, troubled or disenfranchised people;

We, the undersigned local residents, urge the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to suspend plans to relocate the open custody residence for troubled children until a full review of the Dellcrest Children's Centre's decision can be conducted, and explore with the community alternative locations which are much more appropriate."

I have affixed my signature to this document.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated that it `wants to get out of the housing business'; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every co-op housing project in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts to co-op and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to private landlords; and

"Whereas co-op housing is a proven success in providing affordable homes owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

It's a petition signed by about 150 citizens of the province, and I've affixed my signature to it as well.

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM LEGISLATION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a petition on behalf of 500 people in the province of Ontario that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act, was introduced for first reading on December 11, 1995; and

"Whereas the bill amends the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents; and

"Whereas the amended act would require parents and other guardians with custody of children to refrain from unreasonably placing obstacles to personal relations between children and their grandparents;

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

"Please pass Bill 27 with royal assent without further delay to amend the loopholes in the existing Children's Law Reform Act."

I affix my signature to this particular petition.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated that it `wants to get out of the housing business'; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every co-op housing project in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts to co-op and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to private landlords; and

"Whereas co-op housing is a proven success in providing affordable homes owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

I affix my signature to the many who signed this petition.

WATERFRONT EROSION

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition signed by 36 residents of Scarborough Centre from such streets as Fishleigh Drive, Midland Avenue, Sunnypoint Crescent and Cliffside Drive. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the lack of provincial funding for the Fishleigh Drive erosion control project poses an immediate threat to the safety of adjacent residences and presents a public safety hazard and blight on the Scarborough waterfront; and

"Whereas extensive consulting with provincial and municipal government representatives, residents, waterfront regeneration trust and interested parties led to the final approval of this project whose subsequent funding is contingent on provincial capital grant;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to provide funding for the completion of the east terminus of the Fishleigh Drive erosion control project as soon as possible."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

TRANSITION HOUSE

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

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

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

"Whereas the principles of discipline, self-help and a regimented environment at Transition House have combined with counselling and support to provide youth with the motivation and self-respect to return to school or find jobs; and

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

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

I affix my name to this petition.

BEAR HUNTING

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have a petition to end the spring bear hunt to the Parliament of Ontario from 753 people, many in my riding of St Andrew-St Patrick.

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of bears killed in the spring are females, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear-hunting activities."

I affix my name to this petition.

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario.

"The government has stated that they plan to sell off 84,000 units which are owned by Ontario Housing Corp. We are in favour of keeping OHC, which assists people on limited income to have decent, affordable housing.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to keep public housing public."

The petition was organized by Alma Denis and has been signed by more than 371 seniors in my riding. I have also signed the petition.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have another petition from people across the province who are opposed to the sell-off of Ontario Hydro. It reads:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I see that my leader agrees. I will affix my signature to this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): On behalf of the member for Parry Sound, I have a petition I'd like to present today. In accordance with the standing orders, I will summarize it rather than read it. It has to do with the child care system and it's been signed by approximately 14 residents of the riding of Parry Sound. I believe it's in the proper form.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the public secondary teachers of Ontario have taken a workplace democracy vote in accordance with Bill 7 and have rejected the proposed College of Teachers by a 94.8% vote,

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995."

I affix my signature.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to the government of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery;

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come;

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income;

"Since the placement of VLTs in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalating of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in this province."

I've affixed my signature to this petition as well.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a large number of people which reads as follows:

"Whereas the public secondary teachers of Ontario have taken a workplace democracy vote in accordance with Bill 7 and have rejected the proposed College of Teachers by a 94.4% vote,

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in agreement with its contents.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have another petition, which reads as follows:

"Whereas since March 1996, gasoline prices have increased on average a dramatic 10 cents a litre, which is over 45 cents a gallon; and

"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods; and

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and Consumer and Commercial Relations Minister Norm Sterling, while in opposition, expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in agreement with its contents.

APOLOGY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think earlier today in the beginning on the point of order my intervention was somewhat intemperate. I not only ask that those remarks be withdrawn but I offer a sincere and heartfelt apology to you as Speaker and to the august chair that you hold. Although I think it was unfortunate that those comments were in the newspaper and I will stand by that, certainly it didn't call for that kind of intervention and I sincerely apologize to you, the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE STABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA STABILITÉ DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 59,

An Act to provide Ontario drivers with fair, balanced and stable automobile insurance and to make other amendments related to insurance matters / Projet de loi 59, Loi visant à offrir une assurance-automobile équitable, équilibrée et stable aux conducteurs ontariens et à apporter d'autres modifications portant sur des questions d'assurance.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Does the member have a short statement?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): No, Mr Speaker. I made my remarks earlier. I don't think it would serve any useful purpose.

CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE FROM QUEBEC ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE DE LA CONSTRUCTION DU QUÉBEC

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act respecting the participation of workers and contractors from Quebec in Ontario's construction industry workforce / Projet de loi 60, Loi concernant la participation des travailleurs et entrepreneurs du Québec à la main-d'oeuvre de l'industrie de la construction de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Ce projet de loi privé déposé aujourd'hui a pour but de nous assurer que les travailleurs de la construction et les entrepreneurs en construction de l'Ontario ont des chances égales lorsqu'ils soumissionnent ou lorsqu'ils tentent d'obtenir des emplois sur les chantiers de construction en Ontario et au Québec.

This bill tabled today is to ensure that construction workers and building contractors of Ontario are provided with equal opportunities when tendering or attempting to work on job sites in Ontario and Quebec.

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs McLeod moved opposition day motion number 2:

Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that any funding cuts to education would not come from the classroom; and

Whereas Mike Harris and his government have in fact affected classroom funding with an initial cut of $400 million, which annualized will equal $800 million, and which has resulted in the elimination of the classroom for many young Ontarians and adult students; and

Whereas Mike Harris and his government have acknowledged that the current dropout rate will cost the country $23 billion in lost productivity, $9.9 billion in lost taxes and $1.4 billion in welfare and unemployment benefits; and

Whereas many adult learners are high school dropouts who realize the need to complete their high school education; and

Whereas Mike Harris's actions through Bill 34 will make adult education unaffordable for many; and

Whereas Mike Harris has closed the doors of education and opportunities for these individuals by a reduction of funding for adult education with the intended passage of Bill 34; and

Whereas the government's own studies have shown that junior kindergarten has a positive impact on children; and

Whereas the Royal Commission on Learning recommended that schooling begin at age three to maximize the benefit of early childhood education for each child; and

Whereas Mike Harris also promised to present a toolkit to the education sector to help them reduce their costs and failed to provide an adequate set of tools; and

Whereas for many Ontarians the cost of the tax cut promised by Mike Harris will be a poorer education system;

Therefore this House calls on the Mike Harris government to fulfil its promise not to affect classroom spending; to refocus its priorities on the quality of our education system rather than simply cutting and slashing programs; and to promise no further cuts to the education system.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We present this resolution at this time in the belief that it re-emphasizes the concerns we have with Bill 34, the bill that the government plans to pass before the end of the month, the bill that will effectively kill junior kindergarten as a universally accessible quality program, the bill that guts adult education. It's one of the reasons why we present this resolution today, although we know that Bill 34 will be debated again before the end of the month.

But I presented the resolution as well because I believe it emphasizes and reiterates our very real and our growing concern with this government's education policies, our concern that this education minister is ready to destroy public education as we know it and that he does not even acknowledge or seem to understand that this is exactly what he is doing as he not only makes cuts to the education system but brags about how many more cuts he can make in the future.

Some of us do care about education and we will raise our concerns as often as we are able to in this Legislature and in every other forum that's available to us.

I want to focus my comments on this because I think back to when I first became involved in politics, running as a trustee for the board of education in Thunder Bay almost 30 years ago, I confess. I ran because there was no special education in our schools and there were many people in our community who wanted to see special education programs developed. It was the whole reason why I first got into politics. We were at that point just beginning to understand the nature of special education, of learning disabilities. We were a long way from knowing how to diagnose or remediate them.

We've come a long way in 30 years. It has taken a long time. We have slowly come to understand the very ability of the special needs that students have. We've slowly been able to train and hire specialists who could do assessments and provide the education that teachers need and provide remedial instruction to students. Boards worked on these programs literally on their own until 1980 and then a former Conservative government, under Bette Stephenson as Minister of Education, brought in Bill 82, which made it mandatory, made it part of the law of this province to meet the special needs of students.

We've continued to see progress since then as boards have looked at individual withdrawal programs to meet special needs, they've had special classes that would respond to some students' needs and more and more have moved to integrated classroom models so that students are not in segregated classes. The learning of the last 30 years has not been only about the varied nature of the needs of students, but the flexibility that's needed to be able to respond to those needs. The whole goal is that every child would have a chance to learn.

There's no question, no doubt at all that as we understood the needs more, as we learned more about how to respond to the needs, the cost of the special education programs grew.

I suppose it's possible that the Minister of Education looks at these as being non-classroom, non-basic costs so that they're the things that can go when you when you bring about billions of dollars of cuts in education, but these are absolutely critical needs and these cuts are affecting the educational needs of these children. The resources are being withdrawn. It's happening in different ways in different boards because these are agonizing decisions that are being made by boards forced to retrench and consolidate and reduce in every possible area. The bottom line again is that there's no flexibility to meet special needs.

I'm going to take a couple of minutes to give examples. I confess that I could go on all afternoon, because this issue has been so close both to my heart and my political life. It truly made me heartsick to learn last week that the board I first ran for 30 years ago has now been forced into the position of reducing its special education program, including its assessment teams and in-school special education support.

For me, after all the years of establishing the need and building the programs, it was like 30 years of work that were suddenly being undone because the Tory government decided it had to have billions of dollars to pay for a tax cut, and that makes me absolutely heartsick. It wasn't because there was a better way of meeting these students' needs; it was because boards were forced to cut, to find dollars, to find them fast, and no area was exempt.

In my brief period of existence outside political life I was involved in the assessment of special-needs students. Just to give you an example of what this kind of cutback may mean, I think of a boy in grade 3 who was well on his way to becoming a serious behaviour problem who was brought in to see me because of the behaviour difficulties he was having. What hadn't been realized was that this young boy had a math disability.

He was absolutely terrified of being brought up to the board to do addition sums because he was afraid he would be embarrassed in front of his classmates, so rather than be embarrassed, he chose to be bad. If that problem had not been understood, had not been dealt with in the simplest of ways -- it didn't require a lot of money to solve that child's problems -- that boy was well on his way to being a serious behaviour problem and potentially a delinquent and a truant in later adolescent years.

I found out that in Hamilton the decision has just been made to take 800 students out of their separate classrooms and move them into integrated classrooms. This might be seen to be a good move, except that they