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

June 12, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L087 - Wed 12 Jun 1996 / Mer 12 Jun 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY STAFF

FIESTA WEEK

OBSTETRICAL CARE

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

JOHNSON CONTROLS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

CAMPING FEES

CHAPMAN'S ICE CREAM

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO WORKS

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

ONTARIO WORKS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

LIQUOR AND GAMING CONTROL

YOUNG OFFENDERS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PETITIONS

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

COURTCLIFFE PARK

RENT REGULATION

LOTTERY TICKETS

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CHILD CARE

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'OFFICE DE LA QUALITÉ ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION

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

TORONTO ISLANDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ÎLES DE TORONTO

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION REPEAL ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 ABROGEANT LA

LOI SUR L'INSTITUT D'ÉTUDES PÉDAGOGIQUES DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party to congratulate the Filipino community on their 98th anniversary of Philippine independence.

This morning at 8 am more than 1,000 Filipino Canadians helped to raise the stars and sun framed on the blue, red and white Philippine flag. This flag is a living symbol of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino, of the gallantry and heroism of Filipinos in their valiant quest for liberty. It tells the bloody saga of a people who proved undaunted in the face of hardships and untold difficulties. It tells of the unshakable spirit of Filipinos amidst adversities. It tells of the thousands of Filipino heroes who died in the night so that others might live to see the dawn.

Though many of us take our democratic system of government for granted, the celebration of the 98th anniversary of the establishment of a democratic Republic of the Philippines serves as a useful reminder to all of us that in order to maintain the traditions of freedom and preserve democratic values, we must be vigilant and guard it well.

In commemorating this historical event, we are also recognizing the important contributions that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to economic development and the cultural enrichment of our province and country. As we raise the blue, red and white flag of independent Philippines, we are mindful that these Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY STAFF

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Earlier this week, this House was made aware of the fact that one of the Ministry of Environment and Energy's employees who recently received a pink slip from the Conservative government was also an Amethyst Award winner last fall, in recognition of outstanding achievement in the public service. Bill Keller of Sudbury received this prestigious award from none other than Premier Mike Harris himself.

This water quality scientist was one of a handful of scientists who during the 1970s worked to determine what it was that was killing thousands of lakes in northern Ontario. His research on acid rain prompted the then Conservative government to finally deal with excessive sulphur dioxide emissions at organizations like Inco and Falconbridge through the Countdown Acid Rain program.

Since that time, Bill Keller has been monitoring the slow recovery of the lakes' ecosystems and his research work has been published internationally. He is a world leader in an emerging international discipline and his reward from this Conservative government is to be laid off.

I raise the matter of Bill Keller not merely because of his own impressive record of service to the people of Ontario, but because he represents the ridiculous situation the government finds itself in as it lays off over 10,000 people. There are many, many Bill Kellers across the public service. They deliver important public services to the people of Ontario in a caring and conscientious way. They should be allowed to continue to do that.

FIESTA WEEK

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to formally announce the 35th anniversary of Fiesta Week in the city of Oshawa.

Fiesta Week is organized and operated by the Oshawa Folk Arts Council and its cultural member groups. Fiesta Week has become a part of Oshawa's cultural heritage. It has provided the Oshawa residents the opportunity to examine the different cultures which come together and form our community. The Oshawa Folk Arts Council has proudly presented Fiesta Week since 1961. Each year since then the third week in June in Oshawa is Fiesta Week and this year the tradition continues.

On June 16, there will be a parade in which all the different cultural clubs in Oshawa display their traditional ethnic costumes and wares. On June 17 through to June 22 the different ethnic communities of Oshawa open the doors of their pavilions to all to participate in the different foods, dances and many other aspects of each particular culture.

Fiesta Week certainly raises cultural awareness in Oshawa. It also allows individuals the enjoyment of participation, as the events are open to all age groups and all cultural backgrounds. I commend the Oshawa Folk Arts Council in its tireless contribution to Oshawa and our province, and invite all members and all Ontarians to participate in Oshawa's cultural makeup.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I appreciate the opportunity to give my brief commentary on the dilemma that's facing Windsor and Essex county, and in fact many areas around Ontario, in the area of obstetrics care for pregnant women in Ontario.

Where I come from, women are in danger of not having the kind of care they need to deliver their children. Pregnant women won't get the care and they're not getting the care because of the false bravado shown by the Minister of Health in attacking and slamming the doctors, instead of trying to address the situation and come up with some kind of real solution.

I'm aware that many of the doctors have taken the time to meet with MPPs from all sides and even the MPPs of the government side of the House are starting to recognize that the minister is not being completely upfront in telling them all the issues the doctors are facing today.

In fact, one of his solutions to deal with pregnant women was: "It's okay. We'll send them to the US and they can have their babies there." How ridiculous. I thought we were broke. The cost of having a baby at Detroit Hutzel Hospital, for example, is $6,900 compared to $1,500 in Ontario.

That is no solution. It is absolutely ludicrous for a minister to be so irresponsible as to suggest that babies would go and be born in America. Mind you, that's not such a bad thing, seeing as we have our American guests here.

In any event, I must say that we expect real solutions from the Minister of Health when we're dealing with pregnant women in Ontario.

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I direct my comments to you as Speaker of this assembly today. There are concerns within the staff you are responsible for here in the Legislature, specifically the Ontario Government Protective Service and the interparliamentary and public relations branch. I understand that some layoff notices have gone out, although your office is endeavouring to provide me with further details, and I appreciate that.

I raise the matter today, taking note that there was a letter sent to you on May 20 by the member for Scarborough East wherein, as part of his thanking you for an opportunity to represent you at an event, he raises concerns he had about staff performance that day. In part, in the letter he states, "I, for one, am now completely convinced that we need to move quickly and decisively to replace 100% of the existing staff with new, motivated, capable and friendly security and guide staff."

I found this to be one of the most outrageous things a member of this place could possibly say and I think everyone here will appreciate how our staff feel, knowing that something like this has been sent to you.

I ask you, Speaker, as the person responsible for overseeing this place, to put at ease the minds of these staff in that you will deal fairly and evenly and give everyone involved an even opportunity to be heard and that you won't act unilaterally in response to this letter, and I'd like that in writing, sir.

JOHNSON CONTROLS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): It gives me great pleasure to announce to this House more good economic news for the people of Ontario and particularly the people in my riding of Halton North. Johnson Controls Inc announced it would build a $14-million plant in Milton to make seats for Toyota Canada. When completed in 15 months, the new plant will supply 120,000 seats a year to Toyota's Cambridge plant, which makes the popular Corolla model.

This announcement will create construction and trade jobs for the area and result in 120 good-paying, full-time jobs when the project is completed. The economic benefits and spinoffs for the local economy are welcome news and will contribute to an already vibrant and growing community. This announcement reflects the confidence this industry and others have in Ontario and the current economic environment as a place to grow, a place to invest, a place to compete in the global marketplace.

I welcome Johnson Controls to Halton North.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise to highlight the lack of leadership the minister responsible for women's issues has displayed towards the serious issue of violence against women. In the document entitled Request for Proposal for the Development of a Strategy and Operational Framework for the Ontario Government's Violence Against Women Prevention Initiatives, the office responsible for women's issues outlines a request for consultants to bid on a proposal to review government initiatives for preventing violence against women.

This minister has done absolutely nothing. In fact, services for women have been slashed at an incredible rate by her own government. Now, after the services have been slashed and cut, she's asking for a proposal to review government initiatives for preventing violence against women. Women's shelter association representatives are outraged that this government would have the nerve to spend further dollars to conduct yet another review of violence prevention initiatives, and I share their outrage.

The minister should know that women need services to prevent violence. Supports are essential to women who find themselves in violent situations, and further reviews and studies do nothing to help these women in very serious situations. Unfortunately, the minister does not seem to understand, as she stands mute while important services are being cut. The minister is all talk and no action.

CAMPING FEES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Recently, a constituent who is a senior citizen and has enjoyed camping at provincial parks in Ontario for many years went to camp at the French Lake site in Quetico park. As of June 3 of this year, no new fee increases or reservation rules for provincial parks were posted and no notices advising of the changes in fees appeared in any local newspapers. But when this senior citizen arrived at Quetico park he was told that the regular day rate for a campsite with electricity for seniors had gone up from $9.25 a day to $11.50 a day, an increase of 25% in one year.

This senior citizen lives on a fixed income. He does not have, and he will not benefit from, any tax cut. He simply doesn't have an income high enough to benefit from any tax cut. Yet his fees for using a resource which belongs to the citizens of the province have gone up by 25%.

This is another example of the Conservative government hitting senior citizens who are on fixed incomes by increasing fees, by hidden taxes. This government says it is on the side of senior citizens; the only side it's on is taking money out of their pockets.

CHAPMAN'S ICE CREAM

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): It is with great pleasure that I stand today to share a good news story about a business on the brink of expansion in my riding.

Chapman's Ice Cream in Markdale is licking the competition. Recently, Chapman's Ice Cream, located in the heart of Grey county, announced that it had been awarded a province-wide contract to be the sole supplier of Loblaws President's Choice and No Name brands of ice cream.

Chapman's is currently the third-largest ice cream maker in Ontario, and the new contract will boost its overall production by 50%. To meet this increase, Chapman's will create 50 new jobs for the local economy, raising the total to 160 workers at the Markdale plant.

According to the president of Loblaw Brands Ltd, the key to Chapman's success is its efficient production method and the innovative spirit required to fulfil the President's Choice special ice cream formulations.

In addition, a recent $2-million expansion to the ice cream plant and construction of a large trucking and storage facility will help accommodate the new lines.

I would like to extend my congratulations and thanks to local entrepreneurs Penny and David Chapman for their continuing hard work and willingness to invest in our local economy. This truly is a double scoop for the town of Markdale.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a midwestern parliamentary delegation comprised of Senator Paul Burke, Senator LeRoy Stumpf and Representative John Jamian. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It's my privilege to welcome 21 students and their teacher from Sarnia. They're up in the gallery.

The Speaker: Order. The member was out of order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO WORKS

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am pleased to announce today the launch of Ontario Works, the government's work-for-welfare program. Two years ago, we made a commitment to the people of the province of Ontario for a work-for-welfare program in this province. A year ago, we were elected to keep that promise. Today we are delivering on that promise and that commitment.

Starting this summer, welfare recipients in Ontario will be required to work for their welfare cheques.

Earlier today, I announced that Ontario Works will be phased in. It will start in 20 municipalities. Building on our experience, we will announce the second phase of Ontario Works later this fall. By 1998, we expect Ontario Works to be fully implemented across the province.

As you know, we have already developed and implemented significant changes to the welfare system. Ontario Works is the most important because it represents a major shift in philosophy. It demonstrates how we are truly moving social assistance in this province from a handout to a hand up.

Ontario Works will continue to introduce common sense to the welfare system. Today's announcement does not provide the solution to all the problems, but it is a starting point. It is an important first step in helping people break the cycle of dependency.

Let me say a few words about why we're doing this. Work for welfare will benefit people on welfare by helping them acquire some skills, self-confidence and contacts that will assist them in finding a job. Ontario Works will also give them the opportunity to give something back to their community. Towns and cities will be able to undertake worthwhile community projects that otherwise might not happen.

This is a ground-breaking initiative, but we have done our homework. We are moving ahead responsibly by phasing in the program. A lot of work has gone into ensuring that the program can be implemented effectively across the province, and a lot of work will continue to go into it, not only from my ministry staff but also from the municipalities, communities and individuals who will participate.

Let me point out that this program will be tailored to meet the needs of the people and communities of Ontario. People receiving welfare who are able to work will be required to train or work on community projects in return for their welfare cheques for up to an average of 17 hours a week. They will devote the rest of the work week to job searching. Seniors and people with disabilities will be exempt. As the program expands, we will then require single parents to participate. Only single parents with young children will be exempt.

Let me stress that Ontario Works will not take a paid job away from anyone. That is a very prime principle to this. People working for welfare cheques will be involved in community projects.

The private sector does, however, have an important role to play in Ontario Works. We will appeal to businesses, both large and small, to contribute to community work-for-welfare projects. Their contributions could include offering expertise or supplying materials or donations to community projects.

This government has realized $1.3 billion in social assistance savings as a result of earlier welfare reforms. Over the next three years we will reinvest $450 million in Ontario Works.

The 20 communities which volunteered for this first phase all share the readiness and enthusiasm to proceed.

They are the Algoma District Social Services Board, Brant county, the city of Brockville, the city of Cornwall, the county of Dufferin, the regional municipality of Durham, the regional municipality of Halton, the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, Huron county, Kent county, the district of Muskoka, the regional municipality of Niagara, the Nipissing District Social Services Board, the city of North Bay, Northumberland county, Oxford county, the regional municipality of Peel, the city of Timmins, the regional municipality of Waterloo and the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

These 20 communities that make up phase 1 are now moving to develop specific projects. We will provide more information on the individual municipal initiatives later this summer and fall.

Today's announcement signals the beginning of Ontario Works. More importantly, it marks the beginning of the end of the cycle of dependency for many people on welfare. I want to emphasize that Ontario Works is not a cure-all for every problem of the welfare system and society, but it does offer opportunities to both recipients and communities.

Working on community projects will be good for the participants because it will give them the opportunity to develop the routines and some skills, the self-confidence and contacts that will assist them in finding employment. Ontario Works will also be good for the quality of life in our communities because of the worthwhile projects it will make possible.

Two years ago we made a commitment to introduce a work-for-welfare program in this province. Today we are delivering on that commitment.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): What has been released today is a program called "wastefare" rather than "workfare." This government and this minister have released a plan that is regressive, that is punitive and that fails to address the real problems of the welfare crisis. This plan will not create one single new job in Ontario. This plan will not move one single person off the welfare rolls.

It is wastefare. It is a waste of money. It is a waste of jobs. It is a waste of human potential. It is a waste of the public trust. It is a waste of opportunity for volunteers who have been there for years in this province.

There is no plan here; it is simply a continuation of smoke and mirrors, of the ongoing, relentless attack you have launched on the needy in Ontario. You feel it is a crime to be poor and to be unemployed in Ontario and you feel it is acceptable to punish people because they're poor and they're unemployed.

Today in your speech in Niagara Falls you gave us examples of what these individuals could do: Swing sets could use a coat of paint, the stone fireplace needs some work, park benches could be built and the pavilion needs to be painted. That is this government's answer to the welfare problem: Paint swings, fix fireplaces in parks and build new benches. That is the answer to the crisis, the lack of jobs we're facing in Ontario. At the end of the day this province will have more painted swing sets and more benches, but it will not have any more individuals employed who are on welfare today than before you announced this program.

I know the minister realizes we have a need for more park benches, because that is to accommodate the people he has thrown off the welfare rolls in the past year as a result of his changes. Welcome to the new Ontario. Welcome to the home of the thousands of Tsubouchi slaves they'll be running across this province. Welcome to the home of the most park benches in the province.

This is an attack on the poor. You compare yourself when you talk about Michigan and you talk about New York and how well it has worked. If this government's philosophy is to bring us to the level of Detroit, Michigan, or of New York City, let us know because I can tell you we have no lessons to take from New York City on how to run social programs and we have no lessons to take from Detroit, Michigan, on how to run social programs, and that is the level this government wants to bring us to.

How much are you going to spend on recipients? You haven't answered that question. How much cost will there be for clothing, for transportation, for personal grooming? What criteria have you used to give municipalities some guidelines to ensure that jobs are not lost, that summer jobs are not misplaced? How will the program be phased in? How are you going to accommodate the 12,000 to 14,000 individuals who will be eligible in Niagara with the dozens of volunteer projects that you outlined this morning?

How are you going to fill the 12,000 to 14,000 spots of those positions out there right now waiting to be filled? What labour standards will you apply to the municipalities? Do you have any studies to show us how this is going to work? Do you have any studies that show us how this is not going to replace real jobs?

The solution to high welfare rolls is job training and job creation, real opportunities for people. Welfare-to-work programs will work when you put people in positions they want to be in, when you look at the skills, look at the needs and match them. You don't create jobs in Ontario by forcing welfare recipients to paint swings or build park benches. You don't understand that. You don't have an answer. What we see today is a broken commitment. Today's announcement is not going to give recipients a hand up; it's going to give them a punishing kick to the head.

Many people on welfare voted for you during the election. They voted for you because they felt you were going to give them an opportunity; they felt you were going to give them a job; they felt you were going to give them a chance for a job, not a paintbrush and a hammer and tell them to go play in a park. I don't know how you look in the mirror in the morning.

I don't know how you look at yourself in the mirror and not understand the betrayal to the tens of thousands of welfare recipients, the misleading of the tens of thousands who looked to you for hope, for dignity and all they received was the back of the hand. You have betrayed, you have misled and you have lied to thousands of welfare recipients across Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Would the member withdraw the unparliamentary word that he used.

Mr Agostino: Mr Speaker, I don't believe I said anything unparliamentary.

The Speaker: The member did. Will the member withdraw? Yes? No.

I have no alternative but to name the honourable member. He will not withdraw. Sergeant at Arms.

Mr Agostino was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Further response, the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): That spontaneous outrage is a hard act to follow.

On behalf of our caucus, I'd like to respond to the minister's statement. It's a sad day in Ontario that a government that is supposed to show leadership in this province would play politics with the poorest people. You and I know and everybody in this province knows that workfare has nothing to do with helping people become independent and get off welfare. It has everything to do with politics. That's what it was all about in last year's election and that's what it's about today.

It will be successful politically because it will score points and deliver votes. That's unfortunate in the province, but their polling and their focus groups and everything else showed them that. That's why they're doing this.

Politicians and governments are supposed to be somewhat above that. We're supposed to try, on occasion, to help people, especially help the most vulnerable people in this province. There's one description of this announcement today that is absolutely clear: The minister can't make it work and the minister can't make it fair. That's absolutely clear from the announcement today.

Where are the jobs? That's the bottom line. If we're to get people off social assistance and into the workplace, then there have to be jobs. Of course this is going to make people feel good, because the difficult situation that middle-income people are in and the feeling that everybody is overtaxed mean that people want to get at what they see is the problem.

The reality is that the goal for a government that cares and wants to see a solution has to be to provide training and education and job opportunities in the province. If this government really cared, it would be creating jobs. What we've seen in this province instead is an increase in the number of people unemployed that will continue to rise, because what we have seen very clearly are more jobs being cut by this government than jobs being created.

We know this is not a new concept. I am tired of hearing from the Premier and the minister that somehow this is something brand-new that has come upon this government. It has been tried in this province in the 1950s and before. It's been studied for over 100 years, and every study is absolutely conclusive: It doesn't work, it doesn't decrease dependency; it actually increases dependency.

Our view is that if there's a job in the public sector worth doing -- the minister tries in his package to outline some of those jobs -- if there's an environmental job worth doing, if there's a public service worth doing, then let's pay people the appropriate wage and create the job and get people truly independent.

If this government were serious about trying to break dependency and get people in the workplace, they wouldn't be putting forward $450 million over five years for this program. They'd be putting literally hundreds of millions of dollars into training and education programs every year. That would see a decrease in the number of people on social assistance.

Instead, we've seen massive cuts to our elementary school system, our secondary school system, our college system, our university system. For the first time we had a training strategy in this province that came out of the Premier's Council from the days that the Liberals were in power, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and what has this government done? They've dismantled it.

Now we have massive cutbacks in training, massive cutbacks at the college, university and secondary levels, so there are now fewer opportunities for people to gain the skills they require to get into the workplace.

What makes this sad, and I come back to it again, sadder than anything, is that this is all about politics. We have seen this government cut back the most vulnerable people in this province -- whether it's the welfare rates in this province by 22%, whether it's children's services in this province, whether it's co-op and non-profit housing in this province. This government wants to score political points at the expense of the poorest people in this province. It's a shame.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Education and it has to do with jobs for our young people. The minister will know how disappointing were the employment numbers released on Friday. Ontario, to all our disappointment, lost 17,000 jobs in May over April. But the really disappointing news was in the employment outlook for young people. There's no question that our young people face the most bleak employment outlook in over a decade. Those numbers were put out in stark reality on Friday. I'm sure the minister now has been briefed by his staff on the reasons for that.

I wonder if the minister could explain to the people of Ontario why, one year into this new government, the employment situation for our young people actually is continuing to get worse.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the honourable member opposite for the very good question. I can explain it quite easily: 10 years of mismanagement in the province by the government of Ontario.

Mr Phillips: That is an insult to the young people of Ontario. It's time you people woke up over there and realized you're dealing with a crisis here. A snippy answer like that is unacceptable to young people. That's an unacceptable, smart-alecky answer.

The employment situation in 1996 is worse than it was last year, worse than it was the year before and worse than it was three years ago. I repeat the question to you, and the people of Ontario, particularly the young people, don't want a smart-alecky answer. Why is the situation for young people getting worse under your administration, not better, as you promised?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to thank the honourable member for his response to my answer. I don't think there's anyone who doubts that it's going to take some time to turn the corner on the mismanagement over the last decade. I don't take that very lightly. It's quite an onerous task by this government to reverse some of the damage that's been done to this province and to the opportunities for young people in this province by previous administrations. The litany of bad management and bad government in this chamber over the last 10 years is well known and that point's been well made.

I'd make a direct answer to the honourable member opposite, though, because I believe that opportunities for young people is an important issue. It's certainly an important issue for this government, and that's why I was proud to rise in this House not very long ago and announce the fact that we would expand our summer employment programs for young people in the province, actually expand them by 5,000 jobs this year so that we can assist young people get a start in the employment and job communities in Ontario.

I believe we are turning the corner economically in the province. I believe we are creating the baseline, the foundation, for opportunity and job growth in the province. I'm proud to be part of that.

Mr Phillips: As usual, the facts belie that sort of rhetoric. You're going to have to stop blaming everybody else and take on some responsibility over there. We are now five months into 1996 and we have never seen, in at least the last 10 years, a worse situation for employment among our young people. All your government has done is attack the young people; there is no question of that.

I will ask you directly about something you have responsibility for. The one thing that our young people face very shortly is a 20% increase in tuition fees as a result of your government deciding to cut spending on post-secondary education dramatically -- a 20% increase. Clearly, you must have done some studies that indicate our young people can handle that 20%.

I want an answer to this question, Minister: What is the impact on our young people, who are desperate, and they are desperate out there, of that 20% and will you table the studies that you must have had done that will show the impact of a 20% increase on tuition for our young people?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to thank the honourable member for a question that directly affects my portfolio. I recognize the fact that employment in this province, the prospects for the future for our young people in this province, certainly have a lot to do with my portfolio and I take responsibility for that.

The tuition fees paid by students in the province of Ontario have been rising over the course of the last decade. Tuition now, as of next year, represents about the average of tuition paid by students across the province, and I believe we need to make sure that's very clear to the people of Ontario. It may have been misrepresented in the past.

We have provided strategies to help mitigate the effect of tuition. One of those we're very proud of is the student trust fund, this government's commitment of about $100 million to a trust fund to be matched by the private sector, private donors, that will help students most in need. It's going to be directed at those students who are most in financial need. We have also issued a tax credit in the budget for those businesses that help, co-op for students in colleges and universities. We believe that will be of assistance to students across the province. And we have asked the institutions in the tuition raise to pull back 10% of that rise in tuitions for student aid.

So I can assure the honourable member opposite that students are first and foremost in our minds, that we have provided the mechanisms for student aid and we continue to improve the student aid mechanisms in this province, and we will in the future years.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, on Monday of this week your colleague the Minister of Transportation said in this Legislative Assembly that the Toronto Transit Commission was "the worst transit system across the country," and furthermore that the Toronto Transit Commission was "one of the least effective agencies across the continent."

I'd like to know what you think about your colleague's assessment of the TTC, given that you ran the Toronto Transit Commission for the past 10 years.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): My honourable colleague and very good friend Mr Palladini is responsible for transportation. I'll refer the question to him.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): As I have said several times now, my comments were more harsh than I intended and in no way was I referring to the TTC front-line workers. But this government is trying to be fiscally responsible and my approach with the TTC has been in that format. I want to encourage them to look for possible savings that can be derived from within the organization. This was the intent, and it is our only intent, to make sure that the TTC, like every other institution across the province, does become fiscally responsible.

Mr Conway: A moment ago, we had the Minister of Education and Training talking about the mismanagement of the last 10 years. On Monday in this House, we had the Minister of Transportation stand in his place and say clearly and categorically that the TTC, which has been managed for most of the last 10 years by his colleague from Rosedale, the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- you said that Al Leach's administration of the TTC gave us the worst public transit system in the country and that the Al Leach administration of the TTC produced one of the least efficient agencies across North America -- not my words, Minister, your words.

I want you to explain today what you meant on Monday when you said that Al Leach gave us the worst public transit system in Canada.

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to say to my honourable colleague that the TTC seems to be hiding behind the Minister of Transportation, behind its general manager, and I want to basically remind the honourable member that one of his colleagues was in fact the chairman of the TTC. So if there was a problem within the Toronto Transit Commission, I think you should look right three rows up and take a look at one of your colleagues.

However, this government is committed to transportation. This government is committed to making sure that Ontarians have a balanced transportation system. This government is also very much committed to public transit to the tune of $390 million to address all safety items in public transit from across the province. We also committed to building the Sheppard subway, another $500 million. All we want is for the TTC and its commissioners to do the job that the people of Metro elected them to do and that is operate within fiscal responsibility and come up with the savings that are within that organization.

Mr Conway: On the weekend, the Toronto press gave the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing a C and a D, but on Monday in this House, you gave your colleague Mr Leach an F- for his administration of the TTC. I say to the Minister of Transportation, these are your words, uttered in this House on Monday. You said two days ago that Al Leach has given Ontario the worst public transit system in the country and Al Leach gave Ontario one of the least effective public agencies across Ontario.

If you misspoke yourself on Monday, will you now do this, to at least the men and women who work for the TTC and everyone in Ontario who respects the importance of public transit, not just in Metropolitan Toronto but across the province: Will you stand in your place and apologize for what you said on Monday of this week?

Hon Mr Palladini: I'm going to reiterate my comments that I have said. I might have been somewhat too harsh --

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Palladini: -- and certainly my comments were not directed at the front-line workers. There was a phone survey done today by CITY-TV --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Palladini: If the honourable members would like to listen to the answer, there was a phone survey done by CITY-TV today and there was one question asked: "Do you get your money's worth from the Toronto Transit Commission?" Some 494 people said yes; 4,144 said no. I stand by that poll.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I guess, Al, you should take that as an apology from your colleague --

The Speaker: Who is your question to?

ONTARIO WORKS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We've been waiting since June 8, 1995, for this minister to make clear how the proposed workfare program would work in Ontario, whether it was going to be the mandatory opportunity proposed by the Liberal Party in the election campaign or something else. But what we've seen is the proverbial elephant labouring long and producing nothing but a mouse in this announcement. We don't know anything more today than we did yesterday about how this program is going to work. We don't know how it's going to help welfare recipients get jobs they want and need.

The minister doesn't refer to the fact that in 1995 a study was done by his own ministry which found that only 5% of all employable social assistance recipients were not involved in either working full- or part-time, going to school, taking job training, doing volunteer work or searching for work; 41% of single parents were searching for jobs, while 15% report they were also doing volunteer work.

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mr Wildman: What is the workfare program -- the minister has not yet announced how it's going to work -- going to do for these people that they're not already doing for themselves?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm grateful for the question from the interim leader of the NDP. Obviously he's saying he doesn't know how this will work. Obviously you didn't know how it worked back in 1993 either. The turning point was your particular --

Mr Wildman: We didn't propose it in 1993.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You had a piece here in 1993, and clearly the philosophy of the NDP was set out here. I was just taking a chance to read a little bit from it: "In short, welfare has moved far from its original purpose. In fact, welfare caseloads have reached their highest-ever levels since the inception of the program. In 1992-93, more than 1.2 million Ontarians, or one in nine persons in the province, received social assistance." They were in for a little bit of a surprise after that because it went up to 1.3 million, so it wasn't the highest level yet.

"For many thousands of families and individuals, social assistance now acts as the primary source of income. It is no longer just a final safety net to be used when all other sources of support have been exhausted."

Clearly the NDP didn't understand it in 1993. They don't understand it in 1996. Certainly they didn't understand it in 1995 during the election. Because we're doing a fundamental reform here, obviously they don't understand it as well. The document speaks for itself. You've got the information.

Mr Wildman: We don't need vacuous answers like that in this House. We want to know how this program's going to work. Since June 1995 you've been saying you're going to bring in a new program and you're going to tell us how it's going to work. You've postponed and postponed telling us and you still, in this announcement, don't tell us. Instead you give us a list of possible things that participants might make and a list of communities that are going to be involved.

Will the minister please explain how this is going to work. How is having somebody from Brant county, for instance, clean logs out of a river going to produce skills that are going to make it possible for that individual to get full-time work after the program has finished? How is going to clear snowmobile trails, important as that is in Muskoka, going to employ someone permanently when the program is finished? How is planting trees that are already being planted by students, in student work for the Ministry of Natural Resources, going to produce skills that are going to produce full-time work?

What skills and jobs are the people going to have after they participate in your proposals here that are going to mean they'll have full-time work when the program is finished?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly there's a bit of misunderstanding on behalf of the leader of the third party; he hasn't taken the time to listen to what we've actually been saying for some time.

There are two parts to this program. We announced the first major part today, which was the community work aspect of the program, and this is to assist people to learn some skills, to get that connection back to work again. These are things we've learned from a lot of the jurisdictions we've studied. But also there are the employment programs. The member for Windsor-Riverside alluded to a number of things during the response to my statement in the House, one of which indicated that he wasn't sure about the training aspect.

What we're going to do, and certainly announcing it next week as well, is indicate that the employment programs or the training aspect of this program will be accountable, that we're looking for success, not just training for the sake of training.

I point out to the leader of the third party that I can't believe he would indicate that the programs they had for training were huge successes. Obviously, they were not. There was no accountability.

This is all part and parcel of the same program. Yes, there will be opportunities, but I think it's necessary for us to provide the opportunity for people to get that connection back to work again. This is a fundamental change that we're looking at.

Mr Wildman: I'm going to try again to find out a little bit about how this is going to work. If the minister considers it at a rate of $150 million a year, he's talking about spending about $2,500 per participant for the 20 so-called pilot projects. In Alberta, the jobs corps program they have there spent $10,000 per participant. Everybody knows it costs money to put people to work. Why will the minister not commit to adequate funding to give people on social assistance a hand up, a chance to get a real job and the skills they need and want? Why aren't you providing the funding that's required if you're going to go this route, keeping in mind what it has cost in other jurisdictions?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm trying to get some sense out of what was just asked, whether or not it was an indication that perhaps there's too much money or not enough money. It seemed to be kind of muddied on that question. Under the third party's programs it cost a heck of a lot more money with no results. If you want to compare records, you spent a huge amount of money for your programs and the welfare caseloads continued to balloon. It was just unbelievable.

He was talking about the funding. The funding we've indicated for the first year is over a year; it's not just for 20 communities. We'll be looking for our second phase as well, which was indicated in what we gave out. We will have training programs, we will have employment programs, but they will be accountable. We have an obligation to the taxpayer of this province to make sure our programs are accountable and are effective, and that's what we're going to produce.

The Speaker: New question.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the same minister. We are trying to get some detail from you here. I have been listening to you very carefully. Your announcement today was incredibly short on detail. What you did was you told us once again why you're doing workfare but not how you're doing workfare, and that's what I'd like to get to.

You've had a year and the only plan you've come up with is to pass this off to 20 municipalities and give them two months to solve your problem for you. We've called your ministry and we've called the 1-888 number, and no one can give us any details or answer our questions, so maybe you can here today.

My colleague just referred to the relatively small investment that you're making per workfare participant. I would like to know how much of that money will go to the community groups you are asking to sponsor your workfare projects, for screening, monitoring, supervising and reporting on the participants.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, in response to the fact that you were calling and trying to get details of the program in advance of the announcement, the reason you didn't get them was that you were not supposed to get them before we made the announcement. No one had them. You're not supposed to have them.

I have to tell you that part of what is here is that there's a lot of --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think they're a little surprised there weren't a lot of leaks this time around.

The difference between what we're trying to do right now and what a lot of other jurisdictions have tried -- we've looked at a number of different jurisdictions. We've looked at Alberta and we've looked at, for the example that was given, Quebec and New Brunswick. We've looked at a number of jurisdictions in the United States -- Michigan, Wisconsin. We've looked at the experience in California, New York and New Jersey.

The one thing we have found is that the programs that will work are the ones that are community-based, that recognize the resources they have in their communities, that recognize the needs they have in those communities. That's what's different about this program. We're not sitting here at Queen's Park in Toronto trying to put a solution made in Toronto on everyone across this province.

We're recognizing there are differences. There's a heck of a difference between Tillsonburg and the city of Toronto. We've got to look at the agricultural areas etc. We are looking and saying, "The difference here is it's community-based planning." We're working with the communities to recognize their needs. That's what's different. We're not imposing a solution on somebody else.

Ms Lankin: I find your answers arrogant and patronizing. The calls to your ministry were made in the last hour. You didn't even attempt to answer my question. My question was, how much money is going to go to the community groups? There are other details we would like to know the answers to. Would you try to answer some of the questions directly?

You've said in your announcement that this program will not take away a paid job from anyone. Yet some of the examples you use, like planting seedlings in reforestation, are already paid jobs, like grooming snowmobile trails, which are often using

section 25s under unemployment insurance. You don't deal with the fact that the cuts that you have made to community agencies have already caused them to lay off many people. Are you saying that they will be able to resist the temptation to use the workfare participant to provide those services they have had to cut back on as a result of your funding cuts? How can you assure us that this will not take away jobs that were otherwise paid in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This sounds amazingly like a conversation I just had Monday where we had a meeting with Mr Ryan --

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Were you talking to yourself?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes, I was talking to myself; I had Mr Ryan with me. In our conversation we gave Mr Ryan the same assurances that the Premier had given him when they had met several weeks before, that this program is not to take paid work away from people. We sat down and we gave that clear assurance to him. We also gave him a further assurance. We said, "If you would like your staff to meet with the ministerial staff to see exactly how we're going to do this and work with us" -- we gave him that opportunity as well.

Aside from giving those assurances to Mr Ryan which I also give to the member, we'll be looking at this and giving directives from the government to make sure this does not happen. Unfortunately, she is assuming that somehow the municipalities will not follow the guidelines that are being provided by the government.

Ms Lankin: What guidelines? What directives? Where is the detail? You've had a year. Please stop trying to push this off on comparison to previous governments, on taking a look at the 10 lost years, all of your standard arguments. You've had a year. You are the government. You are the minister. You've been promising us this for months and months, and what we get today is an empty trial balloon that passes it off to municipalities and says, "You figure it out, because we can't do it."

In your announcement today you say that under your workfare program the ministry "may," and that's the operative word, "help cover the costs of taking

part in the program" and you give the example of "work clothes or equipment." Why the word "may"? I'm concerned about this.

Tell me what this means. How is that decision going to be made? Where is that decision going to be made? When will that decision be made? Will it differ from municipality to municipality? Will someone participating in workfare in Brant get their expenses covered, but someone in Hamilton won't?

What happens to an individual workfare participant if the necessary expenses aren't covered? Does that money come out of their pockets? What are the guidelines around how that decision will be made? Where is the detail of that?

Show us how your program is going to work. Stop telling us about why you're doing it. We know why you're doing it. We have differences of opinion about why you're doing it, but we know what you say on that. Tell us how you're doing to do it.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If a project requires assistance such as work boots or work gloves or that sort of thing -- I believe that's what the member is asking -- we will provide assistance for that. The projects that don't require it obviously won't have them. That's why "may" is there.

The transportation cost, as well, is something I believe the member is interested in asking about. One of the things we recognize throughout this program is that people don't always have the opportunity to hop on the TTC and get a bus to work.

But on the other hand, if you look at the rural areas, we are going to have to provide some assistance for people in rural areas for transportation. Clearly, this is part of our program and we are looking to assist the municipalities on this.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will be filing a paper indicating dissatisfaction with that answer and requesting an opportunity to debate this issue with the minister.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. I'm very disappointed, as I'm sure a lot of the men and women who work for the TTC --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order, please. I can't hear the member's question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mr Colle: I'm very disappointed, as I'm sure a lot of the men and women who work for the TTC are disappointed, that the chief general manager of the TTC for 10 years did not have the guts to stand up and set the record straight.

Minister, since you've become Minister of Transportation, you have basically unleashed an unprecedented assault on public transit. First, you cut transit for the disabled with Wheel-Trans cuts. You wasted millions by cutting the Eglinton subway. You then proceeded to gut GO Transit. Then last Thursday you basically reduced funding to transit across Ontario by 33%. In your effort to hide that 33% cut, you maliciously and unfoundedly attacked the men and women who work on the TTC and the millions of people in Metro who use that fine system.

Will you not have the guts to stand up on your feet and say that you made a mistake and apologize to the transit users and the transit workers who spill their guts in that system every day to make it one of the best systems in Canada, if not one of the best systems --

The Speaker: Minister of Transportation.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I believe this has been addressed many times. I believe it's time we go on. I believe it's time the TTC commissioners go on. Just like any multimillion-dollar organization, there is a management team in place that should be finding ways to become more cost-efficient. Clearly, it is not happening.

This government is fiscally responsible and it wants all its partners to do the same. The honourable member is saying the Harris government cut Wheel-Trans. Wrong. The people who are on Wheel-Trans know it was the TTC that chose to cut Wheel-Trans.

I would like to address all the TTC commissioners right now, and I hope they're listening: You must look for efficiencies within your organization. Like I said, it is a multimillion-dollar organization and we are looking for them to come up anywhere from 4% to 8%. The honourable member knows; he was in that chair. What did he do when he was in that chair? Because this is not a problem inherited just now.

Mr Colle: I asked the minister not to talk to the commissioners or to talk to other politicians; I said to make it clear to the men and women who work on that TTC every day, making it safe, carrying people to work, to doctors' appointments, 24 hours a day, to apologize to them, apologize to the taxpayers of Toronto and the users of the transit system who have made it one of the best systems in the world, and I ask you to apologize to them.

If you're talking about cost-effectiveness, in your own report that you referred to you forgot to mention that in terms of cost-effectiveness the TTC relies less on government handouts than any other system in Canada; 78% of what the TTC makes comes out of the fare box, out of user fares,

whereas in Vancouver it's only about 50%; in Montreal it's 40%. It's the least subsidized system in North America and you have the gall to say that these men and women who have made it one of the best are not doing their jobs. Will you not apologize to them for not giving the whole facts on this issue?

Hon Mr Palladini: Again I want to reiterate that I have said all along that the problem is not the front-line workers, whom I do respect. I've commended the TTC front-line workers. I've said it for the past three days. I even said it when your honourable colleague asked me the question earlier. The problem here is not the front-line workers. The problem here is clearly not the front-line workers.

Mr Colle: You're the problem, and the guy next to you is the other problem.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood will come to order.

Hon Mr Palladini: I believe we want to get on and get the job done. We are committed to public transit --

Mr Colle: Apologize to those men and women.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood, would you come to order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Palladini: Mr Speaker, if there is an apology that I would like to give, it would be to the people of Ontario, to the people of Metro, for the moneys that the management that runs the TTC is not doing what it's supposed to do and I blame --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Palladini: He was the commissioner, Mr Speaker. He was the commissioner in charge.

In any case, we are committed to public transit. There is a firm commitment from the Harris government. As far as the numbers that he's raising, that 78% of the TTC operational funding comes out of the fare box, I would suggest to the honourable member to readdress that situation and find out actually what those numbers really are.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): A carryover again to the sieged Minister of Transportation who said in this House as recently as Monday, and I quote -- he was referring to the Toronto Transit Commission -- "the worst transit system across the country." Well, the response has been quick and direct. This is what Mr Joe Pantalone, who's a TTC commissioner, has to say: "Either he's as dumb as a doornail or he's out to destroy public transit." The circle that you tread, the pal across the aisle, Mr Leach, his buddy, says, "Al tends to get excited every once in a while."

Let me give you an example of the legacy of TTC, the relationship and the recognition. The TTC has won the top annual award of the American Public Transit Association in the category of major transit 24 times and it's been awarded 31 times.

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mr Pouliot: The association created the international continuing excellence award -- that's the highest award --

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mr Pouliot: -- four years ago. They've won it four consecutive years. The minister should really pause and think before he speaks. Sometimes it's better to do nothing. The morale at the TTC is very low. His pal is trying to reconcile. You have a crisis in cabinet. The second row -- look at them -- is beginning to resemble the death row in political science.

The question is as follows: Will the minister, while he has an ounce of dignity left, do the honourable thing and quickly, expediently and sincerely apologize to the users of the TTC, to the managers of the TTC and to the employees of the TTC?

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Palladini: Once again I want to say that this government is looking for efficiencies. We're looking to our operating partners to look for those efficiencies. All the honourable member's rhetoric is fine. I'm here to do a job for the people of Ontario and to help my colleagues restore fiscal hope for this province.

To address transit as far as the TTC is concerned, there was a poll conducted today by CITY-TV. The people of Metropolitan Toronto were asked, "Do you get your money's worth from TTC?" Mr Speaker, 4,144 people said no and only 494 said yes. I rest.

Mr Pouliot: Minister, you could well be on your political deathbed, so repentance should come a little easier. Not only do you depreciate the essential service all around you, that of our public transportation system, the most democratic of transportation systems in the province, you strike not only with passion, but you add to passion a sense of vengeance.

Rolling stock: When the Liberals were the government, when we were the government, we fully supplied, allocated 75% of the total cost of rolling stock. You've taken your chainsaw and you've slashed the transfer payments to TTC to 50%. On the one hand you claim that it's the worst system and on the other hand you refuse to give them the funding to justify your approach to and your description of the TTC. Which is it? Come clean, otherwise it will deteriorate and you will be the one to be pushed off the cliff.

Hon Mr Palladini: Sometimes I have a little difficulty understanding the honourable member, but he is very colourful, I must admit. Basically I think he wanted to ask me if we are cutting the support funding to 50%.

We are altering our support methods with all the transit municipalities, but we are doing it in a very orderly and responsible fashion. We are telling the municipalities that as of January 1, 1997, the support funding is going to be 50%. However, this government is committed to public transit, to making sure that public transit is safe, therefore we are investing $390 million to make sure public transit across the province is safe. On top of that, we are telling the municipalities and the transit system that whatever safety items have not been identified as of today, as long as they're identified by December 31, we will still support the funding to the tune of 75%.

We are in support of public transit and we want to make sure that public transit is safe and viable in this province.

EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Over the last several months I have met and talked with teachers, students and parents, both personally and in town hall meetings, in my riding of Durham East. Parents and students want to know how they measure up and they tell me they support your establishment of the Education Quality and Accountability Office. Furthermore, they also want to be entitled to compare their progress with other students from across the country. I am proud and confident that the students of Durham East, indeed of Ontario, are up to that challenge.

Minister, what steps have you taken to allow Ontario students to directly compare their achievements with those of other students from across the country?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Durham East for the question. I too have heard from people across the province who share the concerns of parents who were talking to the honourable member about student achievement, about measuring student achievement, about standards of student achievement both across Ontario and how we compare to students across Canada.

It's essential, for improvements in our school system, to know how students are doing on a local basis, on a provincial basis and on a national basis. That's why we support the school achievement indicators program, which is a program offered by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. This is a program that in alternate years tests student achievement in mathematics, reading and writing and science. This year's assessment will be conducted in the science area, and the indicators will be at five different levels for students who are about 13 and 16 years old. The results of this will be completed later on this spring.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to hear that the school achievement indicators program is well in place and that there will be direct comparisons made. An even better measure would be the establishment of standards of excellence for the whole country. What sort of plan is there for a national achievement standard?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The CMEC will be establishing standards to evaluate student performance in the science programs that are going on this year. Those will be made public in December.

I believe the member is pointing to a very critical issue of high standards of student achievement here in Ontario. I'm convinced that the EQAO will help us in this regard and I'm looking forward to having those standards across the province by an independent testing agency.

Student achievement is the only quality measure that matters in our schools, and unfortunately we do not have a past record to compare student performance with. As I'm sure you'll appreciate and as the parents appreciate across the province, this makes it very difficult to assess whether changes in curriculum or changes in our school system actually help students achieve higher grades of performance. I'm looking forward to a body of test results for students across the province so that we can make fair comparisons of our different programs.

It's unfortunate that some people in the education community have resisted standards of testing over the past decade. We might have had that body of work already done so that we might be able to compare our student achievement now to previous years. Unfortunately, perhaps it was the status quo that had the previous government resist this initiative initially.

LIQUOR AND GAMING CONTROL

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have a ministry document that says in the backgrounder:

"The ministry is proposing to create a new agency, the Liquor and Gaming Authority of Ontario. This agency will be a

schedule 1, atypical regulatory body appointing its employees under its own empowering legislation, not the Public Service Act. The LGAO would replace both the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and the Gaming Control Commission of Ontario."

Minister, are you not just firing 161 employees who will have no idea what their future holds?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, not really. I think this is part of our business plan to amalgamate two agencies into one to obtain more efficiencies. We'll be talking about that in the very near future, as I indicated to the member yesterday in this Legislature.

We have sat down with the unions that represent all employees from all these areas to try to negotiate a reasonable transition from their employment setting now to their new employment setting, so they are not in the dark; we have consulted with those unions as to their rights in the hope that they would have come to some solution with regard to their future employment problems.

Mr Crozier: Minister, yesterday you did tell me this would be an amalgamation, but this is not an amalgamation. You're eliminating two areas and creating a brand-new one. You're firing the employees.

I have representatives of those employees in the members' gallery today who will say there hasn't been any dialogue. This document simply outlines what you're going to do and, if they don't go along with it, it's a done deal. As an example, it says:

"However, the employer is looking for agreement from all bargaining agents that those affected employees who are transferred to the new agency will defer termination or severance obligations and that there will be no payouts of any kind at the time the offers are made."

These employees will have no guarantee of employment. You've said that in another paragraph, where it says:

"There will be no guarantee of employment made to any employees. The employees will have no representation. The employees of the LGAO would determine representation issues themselves. These discussions do not preclude any surplusing or downsizing from occurring once employees agree to move from the current agency."

You're going to downsize. We've got a problem now in licensed establishments where booze that is smuggled across the border is being used. We need inspectors. You're going to put VLTs out there in 18,000 establishments. You're going to downsize in inspectors.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do you have a question?

Mr Crozier: Minister, you're just firing them. Won't you admit that today?

Hon Mr Sterling: Actually, what we hope to achieve is a strengthening of the authorities dealing with both gaming and alcohol consumption in this province.

I want to deal with a number of the issues. Number one is that all of the unions have had the opportunity to deal with my ministry with regard to this matter.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No, no.

Hon Mr Sterling: Well, you should talk to the member of the union; I believe Mr Coones, who is over here, has been party to those meetings, as a matter of fact.

We asked them if they could decide among themselves on one bargaining unit. They could not decide on one bargaining unit, so they left us with no option with regard to that because we prefer to have one bargaining unit to deal with.

We hope that the severance benefits would transpose on to the new authority so that employees --

Mr Bradley: He is no longer a "U."

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): He is no longer a "U."

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I'm having difficulty. Many members don't understand "U" stands for unbelievable. But anyway.

Our attempt with regard to this is to take the existing employees and utilize them in this new combined organization, which will be a much stronger organization, much more regionally decentralized, because of the increase in the employees and adding the two together.

I suggest the member wait till tomorrow when he'll find out all of the details with regard to this.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General. Minister, this has been a pretty sad and sorry week for you in this House. First of all, you had to admit to us that you didn't know about the Elgin-Middlesex incident for three months, even though your acting deputy knew.

You didn't know about allegations that managers were at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and at the Bluewater centre at the last weekend and that there were allegations documents had been shredded.

You told us here that the managers who were at Elgin-Middlesex were part of the investigation team. Then you told the press outside that the managers weren't part of the investigation team.

You said you called in the London police on May 31, but we found out yesterday that in fact the London police only assigned officers to begin that investigation on June 10, after that weekend.

Frankly, Minister, you're not in control of your ministry, and every day there's a new issue and every day you make a new movement.

Yesterday, you said you had to call in a person from the Ministry of the Attorney General to help you with these multiple investigations that are going on.

This morning, on your way into cabinet, you told reporters you were going to bring in an outside consultant to investigate your entire ministry, that you were very unhappy. Yet another investigation. Your own ministry officials didn't even know about that until after the scrum. So this is your idea.

Frankly, you are making crisis-driven decisions. You are flying by the seat of your pants. Why did it take these very serious allegations and questions from us and from the media for you to decide to call in an outside consultant to investigate your ministry when you claim there have been problems for 12 years, 15 years, or even longer?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I think the history of that particular ministry bears out the fact that there have been difficulties with respect to reporting relationships, questions about management styles and structures, and certainly problems occurred during the NDP administration and occurred during the Liberal administration. I think you can draw a straight line.

There has never been this kind of review by an outside agency of the management structures, the reporting mechanisms, and I think it's long overdue. The Liberal government was in office five years; this situation clearly was not corrected. The NDP was in office five years; this situation clearly was not corrected. We've been in office close to a year and I'm going to do my utmost to make sure it's corrected.

Mrs Boyd: It's quite amazing, because when you were in opposition you had all the answers and you had all the criticism of everybody else, and you knew what the problems were because they'd been discussed thoroughly, as you say, in this House on a number of different occasions. The fact is you just don't know what's going on in your ministry. You keep trying to blame your employees in that ministry, but you don't know. But the buck stops here. You're the minister. It's your responsibility to know and it's your responsibility to accept responsibility for what happens in your ministry.

Every day new concerns are raised. Every day you set up yet another investigation. Quite frankly, you're setting up all these investigations so you can avoid your responsibility and be accountable here in this House for what has gone on in your ministry. How can the public have any kind of confidence in you? You've been the minister for a year now. This is not a new area for you; it's one in which you've been the critic for many years. Minister, who's going to be reviewing your conduct and your competence in handling these very serious issues?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think any objective observer simply has to review the record of the NDP government during its five years in office -- and to have this member stand on her feet and make the kinds of accusations she's making here today.

I'm accepting the responsibilities I have as a minister of the crown and I'm going to be accepting them in a much more responsible and effective way than my predecessors.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You know that currently there are about 35 restructuring proposals being carried out throughout the province of Ontario affecting some 200 municipalities. You know what's driving this thing, your notion that bigger is better is cheaper.

You and I attended a meeting in Napanee some six weeks ago in which you made a statement in front of myself and in front of about 200 local politicians to the effect that you know that there are going to be some winners and some losers in this process.

In light of the fact that you're trying to save money and that's why you're doing the restructuring, if as a result of restructuring, the taxes in the municipality are going to go up, will you make a commitment right here, today, on behalf of the government to see that the taxes will not go up by providing the necessary funding?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for his question. We did attend a meeting in Kingston which was very fruitful, and at least all of the politicians in Kingston know what they want to do even if the honourable member across doesn't.

What we're doing is ensuring that municipalities in Ontario deliver services to the taxpayers in the most effective and efficient way possible, and through restructuring they're going to be able to do that. The Kingston area is a fine example. People recognize in Ontario that there's duplication and waste of effort, and through restructuring that can be corrected.

Mr Gerretsen: I totally agree with you that the politicians in Napanee -- we were actually in Napanee, not in Kingston -- but in the Napanee and Kingston area they certainly know what's best for their people. But they also know they don't want to be part of a loser municipality, where in effect their taxes within a municipality are going to be more after restructuring than they are today.

You know that these discussions have been going on for a long time in that area. How can you possibly expect municipalities to come up with an adequate restructuring proposal and program when they don't know whether or not they're going to have to start paying for policing -- I'm talking about the smaller municipalities now -- when they don't know whether or not they're going to have to take over all the highways within their system and be paid for locally, when they don't whether or not welfare costs and other social service costs are going to be paid for totally by the province or by municipalities?

How can you expect the municipalities to come up with meaningful restructuring proposals that are in the best interests of those municipalities and their taxpayers if they don't know what kind of services are going to be expected to be delivered by municipalities? Would you explain that to me?

Hon Mr Leach: The municipalities I've been dealing with certainly understand how to do it. They recognize that in their own county system there is overlap and duplication. They're working to reduce that, and they can reduce that by restructuring. All they want to do is to deliver the services in the most cost-effective way possible, and they intend to do that.

PETITIONS

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On behalf of those who receive benefits in Windsor from the local family support offices to the Legislature of Ontario, we submit this petition:

"All concerned parties will suffer if the Ontario government goes ahead with its proposal to centralize services for collection of support payments from eight regional offices to one central office based in Toronto.

"Communications will be even more difficult, less accessible than they are now. All-new staff will have to be hired. They'll be unfamiliar with the cases. No one worker will have charge of one case. A $2 fee may be charged to people calling in with inquiries by means of a 1-900 number.

"We strongly disagree with the Harris government proposal to centralize these services in Toronto."

I affix my signature to the legions of signatures that are included with this petition.

COURTCLIFFE PARK

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have a petition from the residents of Courtcliffe Park in the town of Flamborough, which is in the riding of Wentworth North. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We demand a public inquiry into the financial management of Courtcliffe Park in the town of Flamborough by court-appointed receiver Deloitte and Touche from May 1992 to November 1995, in particular money collected from the residents of Courtcliffe Park that should have paid taxes to the town of Flamborough, which has led to the possible eviction of more than 200 residents."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature, Premier Mike Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach and members of the Ontario provincial Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, protest the government's action against tenants described below:

"The Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants. Rent control allows for security and stability in their homes and communities. Uncontrolled rent increases leave tenants, their families and Ontario communities open to eviction, personal distress and contribute directly to social instability. We want this government to stop any action that will allow uncontrolled rents.

"Further, this government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favourable to landlords for easier and faster evictions. This is unacceptable to Ontario's tenants and damaging to Ontario's communities.

"This government also plans to get rid of public housing, has halted the creation of basement apartments and a new supply of affordable, non-profit housing. These types of housing are necessary for low- and moderate-income tenants to obtain accommodation they can afford. The government must cease all actions that reduce affordability and availability of these kinds of housing.

"This government has eliminated funding for United Tenants of Ontario, Locataires unis de l'Ontario, five municipal tenant federations and other important tenant services at a time when they are attacking all tenants' rights. Funding for these groups must be reinstated so that Ontario's tenants, and not just their landlords, are able to bring their views to bear in government's deliberations on tenants' rights and protection. A consultation process with tenant organizations should be initiated immediately to develop a plan for sustainable funding for services to tenants."

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition that's signed by 1,064 people, most of them residents of Thorold. It reads:

"We, the residents of Ontario, demand that Thorold Magazine be allowed to sell lottery tickets in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Ontario Lottery Corp and not to be discriminated against because of large corporations having a monopoly and control of the lottery operations."

Mr Speaker, you know I've been talking about this several times here in the House.

"We, the residents of Ontario, understand that this petition is to be presented to the Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ontario Lottery Corp and the House of Commons, Legislative Assembly of Ontario by MPP Peter Kormos, who has been given no response to his request in the denial of lottery tickets to Thorold Magazine."

That's signed by, as I said, 1,064 people, including Blair Doyle and Mike Doyle of Thorold, Wendy Smith of Thorold, Susan Knox of Thorold and Dave Cichocki of Thorold.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of my riding of Scarborough Centre. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to (1) continue paediatric services including inpatient paediatric beds, (2) continue special care nursery services, (3) continue and combine Metropolitan Toronto's burn care at Scarborough General Hospital."

I have affixed my name to this worthwhile petition.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): All the residents of public and non-profit housing in this province are very concerned by the government's threats to privatize their housing units, certainly leaving them in a very insecure state and they will not allow this to happen without a fight.

I have a petition here today from the tenants of the St Paul's United Church Non-Profit Housing Corp in Thunder Bay, signed by all the tenants. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned tenants of St Paul's United Church Non-Profit Housing Corp, a community of seniors, are concerned that (1) our homes will be lost because of the government's cuts to non-profit housing projects, which will undermine their financial viability, and (2) low-income families and the most vulnerable in our communities will suffer devastating hardship because of cuts to the numbers of needy people receiving rent-geared-to-income assistance and the increased rents for those currently receiving such assistance.

"We call upon you to stop these government actions that seriously jeopardize our future and the ongoing viability of our non-profit housing communities."

I am proud to add my name to that petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive thousands of signatures from workers all across Ontario opposed to this government's anti-labour agenda, particularly as it relates to workplace health and safety.

I have more today from the Canadian Auto Workers over the signature of their president, Buzz Hargrove. The petition is to the Ontario Legislature to save the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"To Premier Harris:

"We, the undersigned, oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"We demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

As I agree with this petition, I add my signature also.

CHILD CARE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition, on behalf of the member for Burlington South as well, which says:

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore stability and balance to the child care system by (1) ensuring that all licensed child care providers are treated equally, with all sectors having both the same benefits and responsibilities; (2) ensuring that all lincensed child care centre staff receive the same benefits from the government, specifically the wage enhancement grants, regardless of the status of their employer; (3) ensuring that all funding goes directly to the provision of care for children and families in need."

That is presented on behalf of the independent child care centres in Burlington.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, protest the government's action against tenants described below:

The Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants. Rent control allows for security and stability in their homes and communities. Uncontrolled rent increases leave tenants, their families and Ontario communities open to eviction, personal distress and contribute directly to social instability. We want this government to stop any action that would allow uncontrolled rents.

"Further, this government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favourable to landlords for easier and faster evictions. This is unacceptable to Ontario's tenants and damaging to Ontario's communities.

"This government also plans to get rid of public housing, has halted the creation of basement apartments and a new supply of affordable, non-profit housing. These types of housing are necessary for low- and moderate-income tenants to attain accommodation they can afford. The government must cease all actions that reduce the affordability and availability of these kinds of housing.

"This government has eliminated funding for United Tenants of Ontario, Locataires unis de l'Ontario, five municipal tenant federations and other important tenant services at a time when they are attacking all tenants' rights. Funding for these groups must be reinstated so that Ontario's tenants, and not just their landlords, are able to bring their views to bear in government deliberations on tenants' rights and protection. A consultation process with tenant organizations should be initiated immediately to develop a plan for sustainable funding for services to tenants."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm proud to present a petition from Local 42 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada based in my home town of Hamilton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I sign my name in support.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition signed here by numerous people which states as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to it.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a large number of people in Ontario that reads as follows -- hundreds of people are expressing concern about this:

"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; and

"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; and

"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; and

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation 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 affix my signature to this petition as I'm in complete agreement with all the provisions contained within this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Martin from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 12th report.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), this report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Audit Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mr Hodgson moved government notice of motion number 8:

That, pursuant to standing order 6(b)(i), the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on June 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 1996, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): This is a traditional motion, as set out in the standing orders, that during the last two weeks before the House adjourns in June, sitting hours are extended until midnight to allow business to be cleared up before the end of the sitting. It's my understanding that the House leaders have been meeting to negotiate the legislative agenda to the end of June and I'm confident they will have an agreement in place that will be acceptable to all three parties.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is, as some people would say, a routine motion, but one that we in the opposition consider to be a very significant motion. That doesn't mean I'm about to embark upon a 90-minute speech this afternoon on its merits, which have drawn applause from the Conservative benches, but it does mean that there is an opportunity perhaps just to discuss a few items that we might be discussing during that period.

If the government were to order its business correctly, it would bring in bills at the appropriate time and not bring in bills and major legislation and major initiatives at the very end of a session so there is little time to deal with them and so that we are forced into nightly sessions, where I have found them, while interesting, not always to be as productive as the daily sessions.

There was a time when the two opposition House leaders asked the government House leader for further business, and they could not tell us what the business would be two days ahead of time mainly because many initiatives seemed to be buried somewhere or were being withheld by the government so that they could rush them through at the end of the session. That is not necessarily unique to this government, but certainly something I observe is happening at this time.

This resolution will enable us to sit each evening, right through, by the way, from 1:30 to 12 o'clock midnight, and will allow the government to put through a good deal of its legislation. Some of the more rabid backbench members of the Conservative caucus, the true believers, as I refer to them, who are concerned about cooperation of the opposition in terms of legislation going through the House should note that the House leaders and whips and those who attend that meeting are able to come to some amicable conclusions.

Even though we do not necessarily believe that the legislation merits the support of the opposition or passage, we in opposition recognize that an election is the time at which people make a choice of government and that the government has an opportunity, and should have that opportunity, to present its legislation to have it dealt with appropriately.

Rather than these motions that get made in the Legislative Assembly committee by the true believers, by those who wish to punish the opposition for daring to challenge the government in an aggressive way on any legislation, the members of that committee, and particularly the authors of the specific motions, should know that these matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the three parties. The relationship between the people who attend that meeting is a good relationship.

We are adversaries politically, and I notice that the deputy House leader of the government is here and she would probably be able to confirm that the meetings, while at times there can be some heated discussions, are generally amicable, and there's a determination to come to some conclusion which is acceptable to all. That exercise has taken place over the past couple of weeks despite the constant threat from the extreme right, which launched its salvos against the opposition in committee from time to time.

I would like to have time during the evening sessions in the last two weeks to discuss the 120 layoffs at the St Catharines General Hospital that have been announced in addition to a previous 100 layoffs. What is very interesting for those of us who sit in opposition is to look at the reaction of the government to this. I think the government has been successful in doing one thing, and that is intimidating a lot of people in this province.

I can well recall -- I was discussing this with an NDP member -- showing a clipping from a newspaper which talked about "Hospital Slashing Workforce" and the next day saying "`Future Bright Despite Layoffs,' they say. `I think in many ways you'll get better care.'" There isn't anybody who believes that to be the case, but the threat is there that if you don't comply with the government's dictums, if you don't easily accept from the government the cuts that are coming in the health care field, your hospital could be closed, "So keep your mouth shut and comply with what the government wishes and you might be all right."

I remember one NDP member saying that they always said if they didn't get a 10% increase, the world would fall apart in terms of their budgets, and now we see this happening. I won't get into the detailing of all of them, but what's interesting to watch is that happening, the government able to intimidate people so they will not question what the government is doing, the threat being closure or further punishment from the government, and it works. It has been working; I see it working right there.

I'm sure the people who work in St Catharines General Hospital are not amused and I'm sure that patients who will be going to the hospital for hospital care will notice a substantial difference. But the government has been successful in intimidating them, just as in education, in some cases, some of the boards of education are accepting something they would never accept from any other government because the threat is there that there will be further punishment.

The Minister of Education and Training is here this afternoon to listen to this very important debate. He has been successful in getting the message out to them that, "If you don't comply with what we want, there could be further punishment." Some people agree with that. I'm sure that gets applause when you go to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or -- I won't say the John Birch Society; that would be a little too far right. I don't think we have that in Canada. But some very right-wing group, whatever it would happen to be, would applaud that.

I would like further time in the House. I would love to sit in the month of July -- I enjoy sitting in July in this Legislature -- so we could have further questions, so we could talk about and try to resolve -- because I'm a person who wants to help resolve -- problems. I'm trying to resolve a conflict between Al Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and Al Palladini, the Minister of Transportation. They are fighting publicly. They're out in the scrum. A scrum is, of course, where the reporters ask some questions. One was the head of the TTC. He got the medals; I saw them presented.

I applauded at the time that we would have a person in Ontario getting a medal of this kind. Then I heard from the Minister of Transportation that they were doing a terrible job all this time and that this has to be rectified, that this was the worst in the country. I would like to resolve that conflict, the insults that are being cast at Al Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by the Minister of Transportation. I'd like to help out in accommodating these two people. If we sat in July and perhaps had a few more question periods, rather than sitting to midnight, we might be able to solve that problem.

I would like to be able to deal with the problem of nuclear safety, for instance. The Minister of Environment and Energy is here. She's hiding a report on the safety of our generating stations. The member for Bruce is here. The people in Bruce want to be assured that all of these generating stations are safe. If we release these reports publicly and if there's nothing to worry about in the reports, all of us will be saying, "Hurray." I will be applauding that; my friend the member for Bruce will be. The members who surround Pickering will be very happy to see these reports.

If there's nothing to hide, why wouldn't you release the reports on the safety of our nuclear generating stations? We want to assure the people who are around there of this. The minister seems to be confident that these reports will make everybody feel good and that we won't have to worry about anything.

That's why, rather than going into the sessions to midnight, I would like to see carrying on into the month of July. We already have the MRI for St Catharines, so I wouldn't have to deal with that particular matter that I've dealt with many times in this House.

I would like to ask more ministers than the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism what they think -- maybe the Minister of Natural Resources, because he's involved with the companies that make paper. I would like to find out what he thinks of Conrad Black taking over 58 out of 104 newspapers in Canada, and now we read nothing about it.

I asked a question in this House. I faxed it to every one of those newspapers that are Southam newspapers and Hollinger newspapers. Do you know how many people covered that? Do you know how many of those newspapers covered that salvo at Conrad Black? I haven't found any yet. I know members of the House will be surprised. I have seen some puff pieces on Southam and Hollinger appearing in these various newspapers. I didn't see anything about it. It makes me suspicious that perhaps Conrad Black's group is using the same kind of intimidation this government is using, that it's being effective, that perhaps that's the way of the future, that people are going to intimidate.

I would like to have more time because I would like to be able to ask more questions about VLTs. My suspicion is that video lottery terminals -- and members of the government are worried we won't get through all of our legislation this afternoon. I want to tell you that it is my estimation we'll get through all that legislation this afternoon.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Not if you keep going.

Mr Bradley: I want to alleviate those concerns.

VLTs: I can't believe that some of the good members of this government, the backbenchers particularly, aren't beside themselves over the thought that the VLTs are going to be introduced, that the most insidious form of gambling, as the member for Welland-Thorold referred to it, "the crack cocaine of gambling," will be introduced in bars across this province and that it will be preying upon the most vulnerable people, the most desperate people and often those with the least resources in our society.

That's why I'd like to sit into July, maybe even August, to be able to discuss those matters, because I think those issues have to be canvassed. I think the member for Ottawa-Rideau would like to be here in July to talk about that. No doubt he's worried what will happen with the VLTs. Yes, the coffers will be full. Yes, the government --

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Around the clock, just like Bob Rae did.

Mr Bradley: He interjects to say, "Just like Bob Rae did." That isn't true, because last year the House sat -- the government House leader of the day will correct me if I'm wrong -- only 20 days under Mr Rae.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): It was 20 days too many.

Mr Bradley: He said, "Twenty days too many."

This whole issue deals with the rules of the day. I said at one time -- and I'm not attacking the NDP; I want to say to the NDP I'm not attacking them today because --

Hon Mr Hodgson: Your friends.

Mr Bradley: No, because the enemy is on the other side at this time. But when they changed the rules, I'm sure the government House leader, now the House leader of the NDP, was not responsible. I'm sure someone else made him do it, probably the Premier. He's gone; it's safe to say that. I know that the new members would like to have seen the rules previous to the previous government, the NDP government, changing them. They really restricted the role of all members of this Legislature.

Today you should be thanking and applauding the NDP for those changes in rules. I'm not doing so. I think that probably if they had to do it again they wouldn't do it. But when you want to talk about further rule changes, I'm telling you the changes they made really restricted the opposition. The member for Grey-Owen Sound, who is walking through the House now, was beside himself over those changes in the rules.

I would like to talk about the privatization of the LCBO if I had a chance in the subsequent question periods, because I think it's ill-advised that the LCBO be privatized. It operates extremely well at this time and it's simply a major error to turn that over to individual establishments in the private sector. They do an excellent job today. That's a creation of the government of Progressive Conservatives, the LCBO, and I'm complimenting you on that. They help to promote Ontario wine, and that's why that's important as well.

I would like to have additional question periods instead of sitting to midnight to talk about the increase in tuition that we're seeing for students around this province, because what's going to happen is that we're going to go back to the days -- there are students who are sitting in the gallery today. They are probably senior elementary school students sitting in the gallery. Some day they are going to want to go to college or university.

I want to ensure that when they do, it's not just the rich students who will be able to go, not just those in the most privileges classes who are able to go, but people of all backgrounds who will have the affordability factor that will permit them to attend college and university in the future.

I see our system moving today back to where the rich kids get to go to university. In fairness, those who are extremely competent and are able to win the various scholarships would still be able to go as well. But the students who perhaps aren't the very top but are good students will not be able to go because they will not be able to afford it, and certainly there aren't the summer jobs with the adequate pay to be able to meet the new expenses. That's why I would like to see us not sit till 12 o'clock midnight, but rather have a sitting into July.

I would like to be able to deal with gas prices that continue to rise and that are defended by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Minister of Economic Development, both of whom decided they would defend the oil companies instead of the consumers of this province. I'd like to have more time. Even some of the government members might want to have a chance to ask some questions of the ministers in that regard, or the Planning Act and the ramifications of the changes, or the complete gutting of the Ministry of Environment.

I'm sympathetic to the Minister of Environment. I feel badly when I have to rise in the House, or others do, to attack the Minister of Environment, because no doubt she would like to have the resources to do her job properly. She's not sitting there wanting to see her ministry dismembered, gutted, torn apart, the reduction in the funding. She doesn't want to see that.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: If she does -- the member for Chudleigh Farms says yes, she does. I can't believe that because in her previous incarnation she owned an environmental store, I think, in Guelph. We had some great expectations that she would be leading us into a new era in the field of the environment. Instead the government has taken away all the resources she has to do her job. I have suggested, not out of malice towards her, that an appropriate gesture would be to say to the Premier, "Why don't you take this job and keep it," or something like that, as a protest. That hasn't happened. It might happen.

But I certainly express sympathy for the minister for having her ministry gutted by the rest of the government.

There's a workfare program announced today, and I was happy to see that workfare's already taking place in Ontario in the government agencies committee, where defeated Progressive Conservative candidates and campaign managers and other hangers-on are able to get jobs from the government and be paid very handsomely for that. So we know those people will not be out of jobs.

There are a lot of things I'd like to discuss but we don't have that opportunity. It appears that the consensus will be in this House that we will be sitting to midnight in the weeks coming up. The NDP has a convention coming up. I want to express to them the hope that they choose the candidate that we believe will be the best for the NDP, and I won't suggest who that might be. But of course we will want to try to accommodate the NDP in terms of holding its convention in the near future.

So I point out, and I think the NDP House leader would agree with me, because he missed the first part of the remarks --

Mr Cooke: I was watching on TV.

Mr Bradley: -- that the matters of this House can be best dealt with by the House leaders, the whips and others who gather together, and not by right-wing zealots firing rockets into the Legislative Assembly committee, trying to penalize members of the opposition who are aggressive in their determination to draw to the attention of the public the difficulties the government is bringing upon this province.

I am prepared to sit till midnight, I guess, even though I would prefer to sit into July and August with question periods, to deal with this legislation, and I know that the people of Ontario will be very interested in the debates that take place. I just hope that before they do so they will reconsider some of the legislation they're advancing such as video lottery terminals, and that they will withdraw that legislation. I'm not hopeful, but I hope that will be the case.

I look forward to working with the government House leader, the House leader of the NDP and others in ensuring that appropriate debate takes place on all policy and all legislation coming before this House.

Mr Cooke: I'll be very brief. I should point out to the new members of the assembly that the reason we're debating this motion today is because of rule changes that were brought in when the Liberals were in power and that they imposed on the opposition parties which were unwilling to accept them at the time --

Mr Bradley: The good old days. Wouldn't you like to have those rules now.

Mr Cooke: I don't know. Anyway, we will be supporting the motion. There are a couple of reasons why I think we should support the motion. Obviously, we want the House to break for the summer because it's important that committees get out across the province and consult with the public on a number of matters, and we'll be negotiating that with the government House leader. I think it's important that we not insulate ourselves in this place all the time. We've got to get out and listen to constituents.

But more important than that, as important as that is, I think we've got to adjourn because there's going to be a cabinet shuffle, and there won't be a cabinet shuffle until the House adjourns for the summer. Therefore, it's in the public interest that this place sit in the next couple of weeks to midnight in order to get the government's business done and we can pass judgement, so that a number of cabinet ministers who have demonstrated they are completely and totally incompetent can be shuffled out of their cabinet positions and therefore the people of this province will be better off.

I'm not going to go over all of those ministers, but I think there were two excellent examples today in the Legislature, the Minister of Transportation and the way that he responded to the member for Renfrew North, and the way he responded to my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon. Quite frankly -- I've been here 19 years now -- I don't remember a government being as arrogant as this government was.

Even between 1981 and 1985 when the Davis government got back their majority and there was a fair amount of arrogance that was widely reported and observed, that government was never as arrogant as the Minister of Transportation was today in the way he has dealt with the TTC, the people who provide transportation in this community and the people who run that transportation organization.

I must also say that the Minister of Community and Social Services today, in response to questions from my leader and from the member for Beaches-Woodbine, demonstrated a level of arrogance and incompetence towards the members of this place, but more importantly, to the poorer people of this province, in the way he responded to legitimate questions on workfare. I think if only those two ministers were moved out that would be in the public interest, but believe me, there are many others. The Minister of Education has got to go.

But the point being that there won't be a shuffle until the House adjourns for the summer. There's never a shuffle when the Legislature is sitting, so the sooner we can accommodate that, the better it is.

It's also a little frustrating for us over here when you see the amount of legislation that has been introduced into the Legislature in the last couple of weeks, and now all of a sudden the government wants to deal with all that legislation. It's only a few weeks ago that there was only Bill 30, 31 and 34, three education bills, on the order paper. That was it. Nothing else had been prepared; nothing else had been introduced. In fact, there was one week where we almost completely ran out of legislation. The only way it continued was that the government House leader had the Tory backbenchers up stringing out the debate. There was nothing else on the order paper to deal with.

I think the government House leader has to take a look at how he organizes the Legislature. It's not really a sane way of proceeding with late-night sittings till 12 midnight.

A better way of dealing with it would be to introduce the legislation earlier on in the session, allow for the public to digest the legislation, allow for the members to analyse it and consult with those who are affected, have a debate at second reading and get the items out for public hearings, but instead, a little bit of incompetence in terms of when the legislation is being introduced and the long period of time that it's taking to prepare it, the Legislature almost shutting down a few weeks ago because there was nothing to deal with.

We'll support the motion because we believe it's the government's right to deal with their legislation, but I look forward to the day that this place is better organized, that legislation is introduced in an appropriate time and that we're not rushing. I look forward to good-faith negotiations with the government House leader so that there is thorough and complete consultation during the break on things like rent control, which is of great interest to hundreds of thousands of families across this province.

We would also like to see -- and with the Minister of Energy here -- a follow-through on the commitment that she gave in the House the other day that the Macdonald report needed public consultation. Therefore, it's our belief that how that should happen is with the standing committee of the Legislature. That report should be sent out and the public should be consulted on how this government wants to sell off its most important asset, namely, 35% of Ontario Hydro which is currently owned by all of the people of this province.

That is something the public would want to participate in, would want to give their views on, and I think the government is pulling back from that commitment the minister gave in the House the other day because they know that privatization of Ontario Hydro is something that would enjoy very little or virtually no public support in this province if there were public consultations.

We look forward to the next couple of weeks in dealing with government legislation and then we look forward to consulting the public throughout the summer, and we will be supporting this motion to accommodate that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mr Hodgson has moved that, pursuant to standing order 6(b)(i), the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on June 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 1996, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'OFFICE DE LA QUALITÉ ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION

Mr Skarica moved third reading of Bill 30,

An Act to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office and to amend the Education Act with respect to the Assessment of Academic Achievement / Projet de loi 30, Loi créant l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation et modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'évaluation du rendement scolaire.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have a few brief comments, but before I commence I'd like to address the remarks made by the leader of the third party regarding Tory backbenchers stringing matters out. I assure you that I have been requested by the House leader to