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

April 23, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L062 - Tue 23 Apr 1996 / Mar 23 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

NEIGHBOURLINK

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY

EDUCATION FINANCING

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

EDDIE SARGENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SAFE COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

EDUCATION REFORM

NORTHERN ONTARIO

TAXATION

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMUNICATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE

TAX REDUCTION

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

CHILD CARE

GOVERNMENT POLICY

BUS TRANSPORTATION

PUBLIC SERVICES

TRANSITION HOUSE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

RENT REGULATION

CHILD CARE

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MPPS PENSION AND COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉTRIBUTION ET DU RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS

MPPS PENSION AND COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉTRIBUTION ET DU RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): It was not so long ago when the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing promised that he would act to implement the property tax reform proposal contained in the Golden report. Back in January, the minister seemed confident of his ability to review and introduce legislation by spring with respect to the Golden task force report on GTA reform. Well, the self-imposed 90-day deadline has come and gone. By refusing to deal with this issue, the minister is breaking a fundamental promise he made last January. How soon we forget.

The principal aim of this task force was to address the inequities in the property tax base across the GTA region. It is because of these inequities that many businesses are being forced out of Metropolitan Toronto. In many instances, these businesses end up not just locating outside of Metro but, with all too great a frequency, leaving the province or, even worse, the country. Quite simply, it is precisely this lack of leadership which is costing Metro jobs and prosperity.

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I think as politicians, regardless of political party, we all would agree that one of the most distressing aspects of democratic politics in Canada is the growing alienation and cynicism that is felt by voters towards all politicians. We know that generally people have little faith in politicians and in the electoral process itself. It is clearly to our benefit to try to work to reverse that trend, and part of the problem that needs to be addressed is the question of how elections are carried out and the method we use of electing people, particularly to this Legislature.

That is why I've proposed, in a resolution to be debated later this week, that we look seriously at the notion of proportional representation as a way to deliver better, more representative and more effective government. Under this system, seats in this Legislature would be allocated to each party on the basis of the proportion of vote that it would win in an election. In Ontario, because of the diverse nature of the province, a specific number of seats would have to be set aside in each region; then seats would be allocated to each party according to the proportion of votes cast in that region.

There are many other aspects of this particular issue that I know would have to be looked at, and that is why my resolution asks that the Legislative Assembly committee be asked to look into the various models and report back to the Legislature with some recommendations. I ask people to consider that resolution and support it.

NEIGHBOURLINK

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I'd like to take the opportunity during National Volunteer Week to recognize the valiant efforts of Neighbourlink, a ministry of World Vision Canada. Throughout the week we are paying tribute to the citizens who donate their time and skills for the benefit of their communities. It is with this in mind that I tell you about Neighbourlink.

Neighbourlink was born out of World Vision Canada's concern for the world's poor. In 1990, World Vision Canada established a national programs division with the goal of establishing a Canadian expression of their global mandate to help the poor. This brought about the creation of Neighbourlink.

Neighbourlink augments the volunteer base in the community by providing a framework for a group of churches to care for people in need in very real and practical ways. They provide a structure to coordinate service agencies, church programs and volunteers with the needs of the people in the community.

There are 36 Neighbourlink ministries from Vancouver to Fredericton, 450 churches committed to the ministry and 10,000 church members volunteering their time and energy to assist their neighbours' needs.

David Adcock, the national coordinator for Neighbourlink, estimates that about 1,200 people each month are connected to caring volunteers through their organization. Some of these connections are crucial to people in need.

In Willowdale, a woman named Annie, suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and no longer able to care for her home, called Neighbourlink for help. Volunteers from the organization brought lumber to rebuild her cupboards, replacing the wiring in her home, laid new carpet, repaired storm windows, fixed the eaves and installed a new back door --

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

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): It was revealed last month by municipal leaders in northern Ontario that the Ministry of Transportation has floated the idea of reinstating a $66 motor vehicle registration fee on northern drivers as a means of paying for highway improvements in our part of the province. Such an idea simply confirms that the abandonment of northern Ontario by this government continues unabated.

It has always been clear that the elimination of this motor vehicle registration fee was intended as a way of equalizing the higher costs of gasoline between northern Ontario and the south, like the 10-cent difference in gas prices between Thunder Bay and Toronto today and like the 12-cent difference in prices between Ignace or Longlac and Toronto.

If you go through with this new user fee for northerners, we will all expect a coincidental announcement that gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontarians are to be equalized immediately.

The minister has already announced a $20-million cut to northern roads and highways. Does the minister expect that this new funding idea, which is simply a transparent bribe, will be received well by our municipal leaders as well as all other northerners, when it is clear he is simply asking us to pay for his and his colleagues' already shameful cuts to the north?

The people of northern Ontario do not trust this minister on his professed commitment on road and highway improvements. It is an insult to ask us to pay out of our own pockets for work that is clearly the responsibility of this minister and this government.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a letter from a constituent, Mr Jean-Noel Sauvé from Chelmsford. This letter is to the Ministry of Transportation, the claims department.

On March 18, Mr Sauvé and his wife had a disastrous trip from Chelmsford to Ottawa along Highway 17. Because of the horrendous condition the road was in, and still is in, they hit two potholes, causing serious damage to their car.

The first pothole caused a flat tire which destroyed the tire, a damaged rim, a damaged wheel cover and a lost wheel cover cap. Mr Sauvé changed the tire, and not too far down the road hit another pothole. This time the spare tire and the wheel were destroyed. Mr Sauvé and his wife had to backtrack to Deep River on the shoulder of the road in a damaged car and waste several hours of the trip repairing the damage.

As a result of the terrible conditions on Highway 17 which caused the damage to the car, Mr Sauvé had to pay for the following: a used tire and rim work, $103; a new tire in Ottawa, $80; a new wheel in Ottawa, $34; a new wheel cover and cap in Chelmsford, $366; for a total of $585.94. Mr Sauvé writes, "I am making a claim for my unforeseen expenses due to the dangerous road conditions for a total of $585.94."

There are many roads in my riding where you simply must drive half the speed limit. To go any faster would be impossible and indeed would be dangerous.

QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's with great pleasure I rise to formally note to all members of the House that Sunday, April 21, marked the 70th birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada. Over the years we, her loyal subjects, have come to know the Queen as the guarantor of our rights and freedoms within the framework of parliamentary democracy. We have also come to deeply appreciate the Queen's devotion to duty as our sovereign during the 44 years of her reign, as well as her understanding of and her love for the many culturally diverse peoples that comprise the nations of the Commonwealth she heads.

On May 28, 1953, Queen Elizabeth assumed, at the request of the Canadian Parliament, the title of Queen of Canada. This underscores the Queen's relationship to us as specifically our Queen. A few days later, at her coronation, the Queen also took an oath to serve us as our sovereign. This is why the Canadian citizenship oath, as well as other oaths that Canadians take to the Queen of Canada, such as our MPP oath of office, is significant as a reciprocal oath to a living person rather than to a piece of paper or an abstract idea or ideology.

At this time, we should all pause to reflect on the benefits we enjoy as Canadians and members of a constitutional monarchy. On the occasion of the 70th birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, may we join together as Canadians for a united expression of gratitude to our Queen for her years of loyal service to us. May our birthday gift to her at this time be our unswerving love for and loyalty to her person. It is a gift we can offer her always. God save the Queen.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Since yesterday I've been trying to get details regarding grant reductions to school boards by the Ministry of Education. My staff started, logically, in the finance division of the Ministry of Education. After two phone calls, we were informed that we must go through the minister's office, so today my staff promptly called the minister's office. Much to our surprise, we were directed to the capital and operating grants administration department. The director was not in, but his secretary referred us to the school board operating grants section.

The manager was not there, but his secretary referred us to one of his policy advisers, the same adviser we spoke with on Monday. He still maintained that his orders were to route our inquiries to the minister's office. Upon hearing the little tour we had just been on through the ministry, he suggested we go back to the director of capital and operating grants administration again.

It appears that even those within the Ministry of Education are confused about what is going on, where information exists and who has access to it and from whom. If there is a new set of rules for getting information from the ministry, please be so kind as to share it with us, the members of the Legislature.

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a number of occasions, I have raised the plight of a group of defiant cleaners who work here at Queen's Park cleaning offices, most of whom are Portuguese Canadian women, who became some of the first victims of the government's anti-worker Bill 7. I'm pleased to stand here today and say to this House that the workers who remained and those who were hired on have signed union cards and have voted over 90% to recertify the union this government forced out.

Members of the House will recall that for years this union was entitled to be maintained in any bidding contracts that were put out. That right was etched in law in our previous legislation, rights which this government took away under Bill 7 and left these workers with absolutely no rights; in fact they terminated 30 employees, with absolutely no regard for seniority. We know those who remained had a cut in pay of 30% from what they were getting beforehand, before this government brought in its anti-worker Bill 7.

This says very clearly to this government that working people understand your agenda. Your agenda is to cut and slash to pay for that tax cut and it's to attack the labour movement. Here's the evidence: You're not going to break the labour movement in Ontario.

EDDIE SARGENT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Port Elgin has Pumpkinfest, Kitchener-Waterloo has Oktoberfest, Wiarton still has Wiarton Willy, and now, thanks to the imagination of 11-year-old Eddie Sargent, Owen Sound has the distinction of being the host to the world's largest Easter egg hunt.

I would like to congratulate young Eddie Sargent, whose vision and hard work brought a community together in a concerted effort to break the world record for the number of Easter eggs collected.

On Easter Sunday, Eddie signalled the start of the world's largest egg hunt by announcing to a crowd of over 3,000 children, parents and volunteers that 355,000 candy eggs were waiting to be discovered, a total nearly triple the previous record in the Guinness Book of Records.

How did Eddie do it? One egg at a time. In response to Eddie's quest for the record, community groups, seniors, businesses, executives and, yes, even politicians contributed eggs. Egg donations poured in from as far away as Michigan, Vancouver and Florida.

I am sure Eddie's grandfather, long-standing Liberal member of provincial Parliament Eddie Sargent, is justifiably proud of his grandson's vision. As former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Tourism, Eddie Sargent made great strides for tourism in Grey-Owen Sound. Perhaps young Eddie is already following in his footsteps, as the Easter egg hunt could be the beginning of a great tradition and a tourist attraction for the city.

Congratulations, Eddie Sargent.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SAFE COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I was pleased to participate this morning in the launch of the Safe Communities Foundation here in the city of Toronto.

This is an organization with a very innovative, community-based program to help make Ontario the safest place to live, work and play in the world. The ultimate goal is to work with safety organizations and individuals to eliminate workplace injuries.

I would like to congratulate Paul Kells. Paul Kells is the founder of the Safe Communities Foundation, the man who made this launch possible today.

Paul Kells has become an inspiration to every one of us who is concerned about health and safety. He has worked tirelessly with his family to promote and champion the importance of safety in the workplace, with special emphasis on the education of our young workers. He has done this ever since the tragic death of his son Sean, which happened in a very preventable workplace accident in Sean's third day on the job in a new part-time job in November 1994.

This afternoon my colleague the Honourable Bob Runciman will be involved in the launch of the pilot community program in Brockville. Brockville is the first community of what is hoped will be at least five Ontario communities to participate in the Safe Communities Foundation.

I would like to congratulate the mayor and members of the Brockville community, the employers, the employees and the schools, for their enthusiastic participation in this program. They have set the goal of eliminating accidents by 50% over the next two years. We know this is achievable because in the community of High River, Alberta, where this program has been operational, they have managed to reduce injuries by 66% in one year. That's what happens when caring communities work together.

Last year, 52 people were killed in Ontario and 813 suffered serious critical injuries. The tragedy is that most of these deaths and injuries do not have to happen; they are preventable. And that is what we intend to do. We intend to work cooperatively to prevent deaths and injury.

The Ministry of Labour is pleased to be involved in this unique private-public sector partnership with the foundation and the private sector in helping communities prevent and reduce injuries. As a government we will provide the technical support and the expertise and the Deputy Minister of Labour will sit on the foundation board. In addition, the Workers' Compensation Board will become an important partner in the safe communities initiative as it works to develop the appropriate programs.

I would also like to congratulate the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Royal Bank of Canada, which are the founding sponsors of the foundation, as well as Du Pont Canada Inc and Noranda Inc, which are the first corporate sponsors. They are providing all the funding.

The Safe Communities Foundation represents an important step forward in our collective effort to create the safest workplaces in the world. Again I congratulate Paul Kells, his family and all those individuals who are working cooperatively in this exciting new endeavour to prevent and reduce injuries and deaths in Ontario.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand up and congratulate Paul Kells and the Safe Communities Foundation for taking the tragedy and grief associated with the death of young Sean Kells and turning them into the beginning of a positive venture.

We also have to thank the corporate sponsors that have helped to make this project a reality and thank the community of Brockville. Finally, I want to thank Mr Kells, his family and the association for keeping myself and our caucus abreast of the developments associated with this and how it's been coming along. We're proud to welcome that.

I say to the Minister of Labour that we are thankful that groups like this are intervening and beginning to take up the slack resulting from the cuts this government has made across a whole range of labour issues.

This minister has a number of firsts to her credit. She's the first labour minister to introduce significant changes to the Labour Relations Act without public hearings; she's the first labour minister whom organized labour will not consult with; she's the first labour minister who would not address the annual meeting of the provincial building trades council; she's the first labour minister to reduce spending and services associated with health and safety. She spoke of her ministry providing technical support. She forgets that she's eliminating all of the laboratories within her ministry.

This is the first labour minister who has taken steps backwards, in our view, in the whole area of health and safety. I will predict that this will be the first labour minister who will significantly reduce benefits to injured workers.

While we recognize the importance of community-based efforts in addressing health and safety, and I remind the minister that the safe communities document itself points out the dramatic savings associated with expenditures in health and safety, I must say that it takes more than just words; it takes more than the arrogance associated with this government, where they won't even listen in the House or in the community to issues of importance.

I will also predict that this government's cavalier attitude towards injured workers and towards labour and health and safety issues in the workplace will ultimately cost this government. We'll be talking on Thursday about abysmal records associated with health and safety, about fatalities in the workplace. It's time that the government begins to recognize its responsibilities in the area of health and safety.

It's most unfortunate that the predictions we made last year are coming true, that the rate of labour unrest in this province is increasing. The days lost to strikes and work action are increasing. It has a tremendous impact on the investment climate, which we too want to see improved. It is our view and the opinion of our caucus that we have to work to restore labour harmony and bring about a sense of investor confidence, as the government does, but we don't think you do that by creating a labour climate that isn't conducive to investment.

We will see in the weeks and months ahead more problems associated not only with this announcement but with other announcements in terms of compensation for injured workers. The government is about to embark on a massive overhaul of benefits to injured workers that are going to effectively penalize those people in order to try and bring about changes that they think are important but frankly we think they are blowing way out of proportion.

It's our view that if the Minister of Labour was as committed to health and safety in the workplace as her words seem to indicate, we would see dramatic savings in costs associated with WCB for employers and most importantly for injured workers.

People like Mr Kells and the Safe Communities Foundation are to be congratulated. We applaud them and we look forward to continuing to work with them on initiatives that will improve not only the health and safety of our workplaces but indeed of our communities overall. So we welcome that intervention and we ask the Minister of Labour to please take the steps that are important and necessary to ensure healthier and safer workplaces in the province of Ontario.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I don't think there was an Ontarian to speak of who was not significantly moved by the tragic death of young Sean Kells, and we certainly acknowledge the efforts of his father, Mr Paul Kells, in trying to derive something positive from such a tragedy. We salute that effort and we salute the effort of any citizen and for that matter any corporation that cares about the plight of workers and their health and safety in the workplace.

But I think the people of Ontario will understand some of the concern and, quite frankly, cynicism that the labour movement has with regard to initiatives that this Minister of Labour brings forward when we take a look at what her agenda and her track record have been so far. My colleague from the Liberal Party has mentioned some of them; I want to mention a few others as well as emphasize some that have been mentioned because of their importance.

First of all, let's recognize that while this government and this minister stand up on a regular basis and talk and pay lip-service to health and safety for workers, every action to date that they have taken is to either take away rights that workers have or take away systems, procedures, supports and even laws that protect those very same workers. At the end of the day, people will not be fooled by empty words.

This minister is presiding over the virtual gutting of the Ministry of Labour. This is the minister who has announced that she is also going to open up the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That has been done in the context of saving money, of cuts. We know that when this minister opens up a piece of legislation, workers are going to lose some right or some protection somewhere. We know that with the Jackson report to gut the WCB, the purpose is to take away benefits from workers who are already innocently injured on the job. And the purpose of taking away those benefits? So that they can save more money.

That goes into the pot to pay for a 30% tax cut. It all flows into that. There are $40 million coming out of the Ministry of Labour, and a large part of that is going to find its way into the pockets of the very wealthy in our province who stand to benefit the most from this tax cut.

This is also the same minister who killed the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and took us back decades and put health and safety and injury prevention back into the WCB after it had been taken out of there, recognizing it wasn't being given the priority effort it should. This minister is also eliminating the Joint Steering Committee on Hazardous Substances in the Workplace and has cut the training for employers and employees from 120 hours to 56 hours.

There is nothing in the agenda of this government as it relates to workers that has not taken away a right or a protection that workers have earned, that workers deserve and that workers are entitled to, and on April 28, the day of mourning in the province of Ontario, I say this Minister of Labour ought to hang her head in shame for what she has done to workers in this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, you will be aware that approximately a year ago, the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada that monitors the safety of our nuclear plants reported its growing concerns about the safety of our nuclear facilities, and was particularly concerned about a valve problem which could lead to problems with safety.

Last December the Pickering nuclear station was given a go-ahead on its operating licence because supposedly the problems had been fixed. Yesterday there was an absolutely unprecedented shutdown of the Pickering nuclear facility after what was a supposedly routine inspection. Minister, your assurance that there is no problem is simply not good enough. There is a problem when the federal agency has a concern about nuclear safety. There is a problem when a plant is shut down where the problem was supposedly fixed last December.

Minister, don't just tell us there is no problem. Tell us what happened at Pickering that caused the shutdown of that plant.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): What I can say to you is that safety is a first priority of both Ontario and of this government. I can say to you that in routine inspection and maintenance of the Pickering plant, a faulty valve was discovered. It was felt the most appropriate way to deal with this was to shut the plant to make sure the repairs could be conducted in a safe manner, and that is exactly what was done.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you will be aware that Pickering has not been terribly reassured by your answers: "Not to worry. Everything is being handled. It's all routine. There is no cause for alarm." The mayor of Pickering is concerned that on a problem that occurred just a short time ago, they were not notified for some 14 hours and then they were told: "Don't worry. There is no problem now."

We are concerned here about some very fundamental issues of public safety and public concern about the safety of our nuclear facilities in this province. It is simply not enough for you to say there is no problem and give everybody, from the mayor of Pickering to the members of this Legislature to the public of Ontario, a reassuring pat on the head. You have a report, a report which was done on the safety of our nuclear facilities. You were asked last November if you would make that report public. I ask you again today, will you make that report on the safety of our nuclear facilities public so we can all know if there is no problem?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Firstly, I'm not saying there wasn't a problem; I'm saying in fact there was a problem. It was detected during routine maintenance, which is exactly where we would want to find it, if there ever was a problem. As soon as it was detected and determined how best to deal with the circumstance, then the plant was shut down to best repair the valve in the backup system.

With regard to the peer reviews, these are reviews that are conducted every two years and have been conducted for almost 10 years. The confidentiality of these is important to the efficacy of the report. In order for them to work, over the past 10 years they have always remained confidential.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the answer simply has no credibility; it simply isn't good enough. You can't stand here in this place today and tell us that the Pickering nuclear plant was taken through an unprecedented shutdown of the entire complex as a result of a routine maintenance inspection and that there's no reason to be concerned, there's no problem. The federal monitoring agency said a year ago that it was concerned about the safety of the nuclear plants. They believed there was a problem and they believed the problem needed to be fixed.

You have a study that would tell us once and for all whether there is a problem and, if there is a problem, what you're doing about the problem. The public has a right to know. They have a right to reassurance that is based on fact, on an understanding of what the problems are and what you're doing to fix them. What have you got to hide? Why will you not release that report now?

Hon Mrs Elliott: If I became aware of a problem that was not being addressed, believe you me, this government would act. We are proud of the fact that Ontario Hydro took immediate action to deal with the problem. Since these reports have been conducted every two years for 10 years, why didn't the members of either opposition party deliver these to the public?

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I move with some reluctance from the Minister of Energy's non-answer to the Minister of Education and his non-answers from yesterday. Yesterday the Minister of Education removed any questions that we had about his ability to get the job done in education. With all due respect, it is now absolutely clear that it is the children of this province who are paying the price for your incompetence in your ministry.

If you knew what you were doing, why would you have been about to cut 50% of a board's budget, as you were about to do in Haliburton, without knowing the havoc it would create in the classroom? If you knew what you were doing, how is it that you could have created a special emergency fund and not tell anybody about it -- even the officials in your own ministry apparently -- not have any criteria for its use and not even know it existed until after yesterday's question period? How is that possible if you knew what you were doing?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm surprised by both the tone and the nature of the question, because I believe this question was addressed yesterday, but I will address it again for you today. As I would have thought the member would have known, there are a great number of factors involved in the general legislative grants, among those change in assessment, change in student enrolment, the effects of the permanent social contract savings in the boards and of course the effect of our announcement of something less than 2% of board spending for next year.

In combination this may have, particularly on smaller boards from place to place, what we would call and what is known as an undue burden. In these circumstances, governments in the past have applied regulation 307 of the Education Act to make sure that student services could be provided on an equitable basis by all boards in the province.

I am, again, very surprised at the nature of the question, because regulation 307 has been applied over 30 times in the last decade, so it's a very common use. My understanding is, if I can just use a couple of examples, that in 1989 the Ottawa-Carleton board was given an undue burden grant of $2.7 million, and in 1993 the Windsor Board of Education was given an $802,000 undue burden grant. I suspect the members from those areas represented their areas well.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not surprised that you've come into the House today with somewhat more information than you were able to provide us with yesterday. You will remember that yesterday I asked you to tell us what special consideration, what special deal had been made with the Haliburton board. You said there was no deal at all. Later in the day you said that indeed there had been some special consideration and you would review your 10% overall grants to the school boards of this province, and you would make sure that everybody was treated fairly.

Minister, it's unbelievable that you would have to review something that you had just done the previous week, because you had no idea what you had done. You had no idea what your cuts were and you had no idea what effect they were having on boards.

You certainly didn't know what was happening in Haliburton, where your revolution was about to leave the Haliburton board absolutely reeling with a 50% cut to its funding, and your colleague the Minister of Natural Resources had no choice but to come to you in desperation and ask for some special consideration.

Minister, how could that have possibly made it past your desk: the very idea that you'd hit a board like Haliburton with a 50% cut without your knowing about it and knowing the consequences? Why did you have to cut a special deal with your colleague the Minister of Natural Resources and who else have you cut this special deal with?

Hon Mr Snobelen: To the honourable member opposite, I am surprised at the nature of the question because I would've thought that the honourable member opposite would've known the nature of the general legislative grants, having had the experience in the House that she has had. I would've thought she would've known that the normal process is to send out, in draft form, the GLG regulations, to confirm enrolment numbers and assessment bases with boards. When boards feel there's an undue burden, they approach the ministry and ask for relief, and we will respond to that.

I can assure the member opposite that this government is concerned about making sure there's an equitable base of funding across the province, that we will address these circumstances, particularly with small boards, because we want to make sure that they can in fact apply these savings to their circumstances. So we will review that very carefully in advance of next year's grant formula in the normal process that has taken place in this province for over 20 years.

Mrs McLeod: This year. It's what you did last week that we're worried about. It's the fact that you were about to hit the Haliburton board of education with a 50% cut that they couldn't possibly have coped with, that it was up to your colleague the Minister of Natural Resources to come to you desperately to say, "Minister, we've got a problem, and you've got to fix the problem." You didn't know what was happening. You still don't know what was happening. You're still not prepared to tell us who else this week, as of now, has had some special consideration like the consideration that the Haliburton board got.

Minister, in the course of this week, you have been accused of having lied about cuts not affecting classroom education. You've been accused of being out of whack and out of control, and that's just what your friends are saying. It's clear that the crisis the Minister of Education used to talk about creating has happened, Minister, and the crisis is you. It is your performance that is the crisis, and your complete failure to understand what is happening to boards because of your cuts is the crisis.

Minister, you've created the crisis; you can help to solve it. Tell us today, straight information, the name of every school board that you have cut a deal with, that you've reviewed and fixed the problem in the last week. Tell us which members of your cabinet have been lobbying you to give their school board a special deal. Tell us how many secret funds you have at your disposal to fix the problems that you've created and, most of all, tell us when you intend to start acting with some semblance of competence, or when you'll step down.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for both the excellent question and for the tone of the question, which was conciliatory, of course, and what we've come to expect in the House.

I have answered this question repeatedly over the last two days, and I hope perhaps the member opposite will listen carefully: There has been no deal cut with any board. The ministry, in the normal course of sending out draft general legislative grants and reviewing both the assessment base and the student enrolment base, particularly with small boards, which is the normal process, the process that's gone on government to government, year to year, for next year's grants, we will be going through that process of review. We are going through that process of review.

I can assure the member opposite -- I'm sure she'll be interested in hearing this -- that we will make absolutely certain that boards of education, particularly the small boards which don't have as much room to manoeuvre in their budgets as larger boards do, that we'll make sure those boards are treated equitably and fairly. Once we have confirmed their enrolment with them, once we have confirmed their assessment base with them, we will do what is necessary to make sure they can operate a sound school system for the next year. I want to assure the member opposite of that.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I hope the minister is going to clarify this to the Haliburton County Echo so that they can straighten out what was the error.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. It's in regard to the comments made by Mayor Wayne Arthurs, who expressed concern about how long it took for Pickering council to be notified of the tritium heavy water spill last week and then the emergency cooling system problems that led to the shutdown at Pickering.

Minister, the coolant system problem was discovered on Tuesday. The plant manager, Pierre Charlebois, met with the Pickering Ontario Hydro liaison committee, which is made up of municipal council members and residents, on Thursday, yet at that meeting, which was to deal with Pickering safety issues, Mr Charlebois did not mention what had occurred at Pickering two days previous. Could the minister explain why Ontario Hydro withheld that information from the very community committee that is supposed to deal with safety problems around the Pickering nuclear plant?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I believe I answered this question as well as I could in the House last week. I did acknowledge that we had not been properly informed by Ontario Hydro with regard to this. I did indicate at that time that I had sent a letter to the chair of Ontario Hydro expressing our concerns and wanting to be assured that the protocol that had been established in the fall was properly followed. I, in fact, did receive assurance from the chair of Ontario Hydro that there had been an acknowledgement that that protocol had not been properly followed and an assurance that that would not occur ever again.

Mr Wildman: That was assurance to you, as minister, that you'd be notified, as you certainly should be. Do you have any assurance that the local liaison committee that has been set up to deal specifically with these problems at Pickering will also be notified in a timely fashion, rather than the kinds of delays that were experienced last week, that is, that the public will get the information they need, the full story of the state of Ontario Hydro's nuclear plant safety?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): She got the same assurances.

Mr Wildman: With regard to the peer review audit that was asked about yesterday and previously, and here again today, the minister says she doesn't want to give out the information because that might mean that people participating in the peer review will not be candid. Can she at least make a commitment to black out whatever names and identifications are in there and give us the information? If the information is clear that there are not serious problems, it will reassure the public. Surely the minister would want to reassure the public about the safety at Ontario nuclear plants. Why won't you publish the peer review report?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Again, I must reassure everyone that the faulty valve was discovered during routine maintenance checks. Ontario Hydro determined that the best way to solve and to repair this was to shut the plant.

My colleague across the way will understand peer reviews. As I said earlier, they are done every second year and have been done so for 10 years. Whether it relates to nuclear facilities or health reviews, the integrity of that whole process, the confidentiality, is absolutely fundamental for a full and candid discussion among peers to occur so that their recommendations can be fully discussed and appropriate measures taken.

Mr Wildman: Doesn't the minister understand that what the members of this House are concerned about and the members of the public are concerned about is the integrity and safety of the nuclear system, of Ontario Hydro, in the province? If the minister understands that, and she also acknowledges that the chair of Ontario Hydro, Mr Farlinger, is going around talking about his desire to privatize the nuclear parts of Ontario Hydro as well as other generating systems, isn't the minister concerned that a private operator of nuclear plants might be tempted to cut corners on safety in order to save money?

And if that is the case, with the debate on privatization just now beginning, why won't the minister assure the public of the integrity of the nuclear system by publishing this report?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I can assure all citizens of this province that the safety of nuclear generation in this province is very, very important to this government, as it is to every citizen. My colleague across the way was the Minister of Energy and didn't ever release any of those peer review reports.

The safety of all nuclear plants is not governed by Ontario Hydro; it's governed by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. That is a governing agency that determines the safety operations that must be adhered to in the operation of any nuclear facility, private or public.

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy as well. We understand that this government's agenda is to sell off many of Ontario's most valuable public assets. What concerns us is your chair of Ontario Hydro has been touring the world telling people that he believes Ontario Hydro's nuclear generating stations should be sold off as well. I want to ask the minister, will you confirm that you are not in favour of privatizing Ontario Hydro's nuclear stations?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): What we have determined is that Ontario Hydro is facing some tremendous challenges with regard to the cost of the electricity it must produce. Our job as a government is to attempt to determine how best to ensure Ontario Hydro's stability and the affordability of its rates.

Mr Hampton: What I find interesting is that this Minister of Environment, who's supposed to be charged with protecting the environment and the safety of Ontarians, talks about profitability and talks about manageability. Nowhere is there mention of safety.

Let me ask the minister again. I put to you a simple question: Will you take a stand? Are you opposing the sale of Ontario Hydro's nuclear stations? People in this province are worried about the issue of safety with respect to the nuclear generating stations. Your chair of Ontario Hydro says he's in favour of selling the nuclear generating stations to private companies. Are you in favour of that? Are you opposed to it? Will you take a position?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Just for the record, the safe operation of any nuclear facility in this province is very important to this government, as it is to every citizen in this province, first and foremost. Secondly, we have not made a determination what we are about to do with Ontario Hydro, if anything.

We are trying to determine how best to ensure Ontario Hydro's affordable rates for the future. It is important to the competitiveness of this province. Low energy rates are vital to keeping business in this province, and we recognize that and how important it is for the job creation agenda of this government. It matters to us. Ontario Hydro is now facing a $32-billion debt. It's important that we consider all of these factors in what we attempt to do with Ontario Hydro to keep it a strong, profitable and viable corporation.

Mr Hampton: Let me try again and let me quote for the minister some information from the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of privatization. What the

article in the Wall Street Journal says is that in the United States people are becoming increasingly worried about the safety of nuclear plants owned by private companies in the United States, because to save costs private utilities are already running nuclear plants longer and harder, in part by reducing the number of days they are taken out of service for refuelling. People are worried about the safety of nuclear plants. Are you prepared here and now, today, to rule out the privatization of the nuclear generating stations? Certainly in the United States it's becoming a very big safety issue. Will you rule that out?

Hon Mrs Elliott: We of the government, on behalf of the people of Ontario, are committed to the safe operation of all nuclear facilities in this province.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A new question to the Minister of Environment and Energy about the situation at Pickering last week and this. Minister, a very serious development occurred last week at the nuclear station at Pickering. We have an unprecedented shutdown of all the units at Pickering. That's never happened before.

Eight days ago, there was a leak of tritiated water. It was more than four days later before the shutdown was indicated to the mayor of the community. This comes after a number of very serious concerns that have been identified by the federal regulator, and I'm not going to trot them out here, but in recent years the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada has said it is increasingly concerned about the deteriorating safety ethic and standard at Ontario Hydro's nuclear power stations.

I want to know, Minister, what you have to say to the people of Pickering and Durham region about why it was more than four days before they and their community leadership were notified about what was happening at that large nuclear station in Pickering.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): The plant is now shut down as a precautionary measure by Ontario Hydro. I think I would be more concerned as a citizen, if a faulty valve had been detected in the safety backup system, if nothing had occurred. There are nine people from the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada now onsite, very pleased with the remediation work being undertaken by Ontario Hydro at this site.

Mr Conway: Almost a year before the incident last week, the federal regulator, the Atomic Energy Control Board, wrote about Pickering, copies of which information you and your department have had for months because this letter is dated August 11, 1995 -- I'm quoting now from the AECB letter to Mr Charlebois from last August:

"There have recently been a significant number of serious events at both Pickering A and B, leading us" -- the AECB -- "to question Ontario Hydro's nuclear effectiveness in maintaining a satisfactory level of safety."

That letter was written almost a year before last week's incident. The record is clear and it's becoming clearer every week. Ontario Hydro is slipping, and slipping seriously, in its maintenance of an appropriate safety standard at places like Pickering.

You offer us platitudes about the government's concern and what the government is doing. I submit to you today that you have done nothing between last August and last week to satisfy the people of Durham region specifically and the people of Ontario generally that this slippage in safety standard at Ontario Hydro's nuclear power stations is being arrested. I ask again, what are you prepared to say to the mayor and the people of Pickering about this AECB concern, which has been on the record now for months, beyond the kinds of pious and pointless platitudes you've offered here today?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I find this a confusing position to answer, from this point of view: On one hand the member opposite is accusing us of doing nothing, and on the other hand he's accusing us of overreacting by closing the Pickering plant to repair the faulty valve. I put to him that if he wants the valve repaired we must take the appropriate measures, and Ontario Hydro, to its credit, has done so.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. Yesterday in the House we had discussion about special deals the minister was apparently offering certain boards in the province that were experiencing undue burdens as a result of the reductions in grants from his ministry to boards this year and his indication that those reductions might be capped at a certain percentage of last year's funding.

Frankly, as a result of the cuts that have been made by this government to the legislative grants for boards across Ontario this year, all the boards in Ontario could argue that they are facing undue burden. As a result of that, I've written to the boards, suggesting as the minister did yesterday, I think, that the boards should apply for undue burden grants to help them deal with these cuts that have been announced by the minister.

With that in mind, could the minister please explain to us what the criteria are for determining which boards will be eligible for undue burden grants as a result of the cuts in transfer payments from this government to boards like the Haliburton County Board of Education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the leader of the third party for the question. Although it's very similar to questions that I answered yesterday, I'm pleased to address the question again today.

I'm pleased to inform the member opposite, about the example that came forward yesterday of a board that apparently, from the information that came from across the floor, was going to experience a reduction of about $1.2 million in funding, that $200,000 of that $1.2 million relates to actions of this government and $1 million of that number relates to the consequences of actions of his government when it was in power. I'm surprised that he had not a more profound understanding of those numbers.

Mr Wildman: Are we to understand, from the minister's response, that the particular board to which he was referring, Haliburton county, will receive assistance this year with its funding problems as a result of the changes in grants from the provincial government? If it isn't for this year, can he explain why his colleague apparently informed the local board and the public meeting that this was going to happen? Further, can the minister explain why there are rampant rumours that other boards have applied for undue burden grants for this year, such as the West Parry Sound Board of Education in the Minister of Finance's riding?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm very glad to answer that question of the honourable member opposite. I can tell him what I told the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago, that since we have sent out the draft GLGs, based on our projections of enrolment, based on our projections of assessment, we will get back the information from the boards, which is a normal course of events, by the way, we'll get back from them their sense of assessment, their sense of enrolment, and then we will work with them, particularly with small boards, boards with a small enrolment base which don't have as many opportunities to reduce costs outside of the classroom, which is our commitment to the people of Ontario.

If the member opposite wants some better understanding of a special-purpose grant and how it's applied, perhaps he could ask the member for Windsor-Riverside, who was involved I know in his government as a cabinet minister. The Windsor Board of Education received a special-burden grant in 1993 of $802,000. I'm sure that member, at least, understands how this process works.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question this afternoon is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, I read with great interest last month's series in the Toronto Star regarding issues of spousal abuse. This issue is a very serious one, not only to my constituents but to society as a whole. As elected representatives, we have a moral duty to address this issue.

In your capacity as minister responsible for women's issues, how are the priorities in your business plan addressing this issue?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I'd like to thank the member for the question and also to compliment the Toronto Star for the excellent research it did with regard to this issue.

The number one priority of our business plan this year, as the members know, is the development of a provincial framework to promote community safety initiatives to assist in the prevention of violence against women. As other governments before us have made this a priority, we are continuing with the work they have done and are building on it.

This government spends almost $100 million to prevent violence against women; that budget has increased from some $5 million to $100 million in the last 10 years. We're very interested in accountability for the spending and the helpfulness of the programs the women receive, and the prevention and education programs that go along with them. As such, we intend to examine the effectiveness, and we are in program delivery for the women. This is our priority and will remain our priority in the year to come.

Mrs Fisher: We all recognize that this province is in a period of serious fiscal restraint and that difficult decisions must be made about where we spend the limited provincial funds we have. Have any cuts been made to front-line services for abused women in the recent estimates announcement made by the Chair of the Management Board?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Right off the top in answer to that question about the recent estimates announcements by the Chair of Management Board, there will be no reductions to programs that support women who have been the victims of violence -- none at all. Some of the members opposite may be somewhat concerned about that, but we all recognize the seriousness of the situation facing abused women in Ontario.

We have been most pleased with the response of the communities with regard to our Ontario reduction targets in the summer. Many of the communities have come together to share services; that's exactly what we intended and exactly how they responded. It's our intent always to do better with less, and we're delivering upon this promise we made to the citizens of Ontario last summer.

I also have to say that I've worked closely with my colleagues in the eight other ministries responsible for the violence initiatives to ensure that we would stay the course on providing the essential front-line services. You should all be very proud to tell your constituents that we have cut only in administrative areas.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. This morning the Ontario Secondary School Principals' Council took the highly unusual step of publicly voicing their concerns over the direction this government is taking on secondary school reform. I'm sure you've been notified and briefed on their press conference. They have joined the long list of people who say that your policies are hurting students, hurting the quality of education, in fact lowering educational standards.

This is what they had to say this morning: "In spite of offering assistance very early in the process, the Ontario Secondary School Principals' Council and their local parent associations have been ignored." An unusual step for this group to take, you'll have to admit.

Why have you ignored the principals and the parents in their offer to help, number one; and why are you moving ahead without any regard to the advice of those people responsible for implementing the secondary school program?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for the question. I believe in the same press conference this morning the principals who were gathered had some rather complimentary things to say about some of the things they have been hearing that are coming forward from an advisory council we put together, for the member's information, of people involved in the education community -- directors of education, teachers and other people involved in the education community -- to form an advisory committee to this government about secondary school reform.

Our commitment to secondary school reform remains the same, and that is to have a program of excellence for those who are exiting to university but also to have a program that addresses the very real needs of the 60% or so of students who will go out to the world of work after high school. We think a relevant, high-standard secondary school program needs to be put together, and we are using an advisory body to put together a draft document for that purpose. Once that draft document is ready, we will of course be consulting with educators and with parents before implementation.

Mr Patten: You continually say that you consult, that you visit schools, that you've heard the opinions of people in the field. I suppose it means many people feel that you're not listening.

This past weekend I had the good fortune to meet with over 100 principals and vice-principals not far from your region. Many of them had grave concerns about what they had read in the draft document, the content, and the process in particular, especially knowing that we're talking about an implementation phase of perhaps a little over a year, grave concerns with the upheavals that are presently going on in the educational system to revamp the program for six years, from grade 12 to grade 7. They're deeply, deeply horrified at the prospect of the kind of upheaval that will take place.

Minister, why do you think these principals had to take this rather courageous and unusual step to speak out?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe that in a system where there are some 130,000 or more teachers, a large number of principals, a large number of school boards, over 160 school boards in this province, two million children, two million young people who are in our schools, there are a variety of opinions within that structure and a variety of organizations.

I'm glad the member opposite mentioned the fact that I as minister have attempted to get out to as many of those schools as I can. I've spent about 25% of my time doing that, talking to principals, talking to educators, about the reforms that are needed in our school system.

I want to remind the member opposite that there has been no draft release by the advisory council. As far as I know, that is still being worked on. When it is released, we will consult widely in the education community to get the best advice from the education community on how to make these needed changes in our education system. But I want to remind the member opposite that these reforms are necessary for our education system, for our young people in the province of Ontario. This is a reform that was recommended by the Hall-Dennis report. This is a recommendation of the most recent royal commission.

This is a change that needs to happen in education in Ontario, and with this government in power, this change will happen.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines. I'm glad to see you here for question period because since April 11, when you gutted the MNR, you only showed up once last week.

With each passing day it's become more and more clear that you have no idea what the cuts are doing to communities in northern Ontario. You know nothing about the impact of these cuts on local economies in these 12 communities.

I'm going to give you an example. In Cochrane, the relocation of the MNR regional office is going to cost the community of 4,500 people 42 jobs. Thirty families will be affected. It will take $2 million out of the annual economy of Cochrane. That's like cutting 20,000 jobs out of Metro and taking $978 million in annual income out of the Metro economy.

David Hughes, the mayor of Cochrane, says: "This is like a slap in the face. We could have at least expected some sort of discussion, especially about an announcement like this." The town of Cochrane is repeatedly asking for a meeting with you, and your office tells them it will take three to four weeks. The jobs will be gone by then. We have over 500 letters asking for meetings with the Minister of Natural Resources.

Minister, you are doing this to small communities all over northern Ontario and then you had the nerve to stand up in this House last week and make a stupid, arrogant remark about showing favouritism to the north. Can you tell the people of these communities who are losing their jobs, who know what it's like to be evacuated from their homes because of the forest fires and now watch in disbelief as you cut fire protection, why they should be so appreciative of your favouritism to northern Ontario?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the question. I disagree with the premise and the tone. No one takes a great deal of pleasure in seeing the operations of the Ontario government having to be downsized, but there is a reality that has to be faced, that we're preserving the essential services in Ontario so we can have sustainable government. We're also organizing the ministry on a functional basis so it will provide better future service.

The consolidation of offices is a message we have heard from the public throughout the province, and that is, let's try to leave intact the core function, the front-line services that help people. If we can find ways to deliver services more effectively by reducing administration and overhead, those are the areas that should be looked at first. On the office consolidation we're moving from four regions to three. The regional office in Cochrane will be moved to Timmins; there will still be a district office there. I will be talking to the community. We've got an extremely busy

schedule and we're trying to arrange something.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Last Wednesday, my colleague from Sudbury East asked you a question about the 2,200 jobs being hacked from northern Ontario in your ministry. You made a very strange and I must say smug remark about how you are showing favouritism to the north, even though 45% of the job losses are being absorbed by less than 10% of the population in this province, which is a very strange remark for a Minister of Northern Development to make.

You have cut more than 1,000 jobs in northern Ontario, you're closing 11 fire bases in northern Ontario, you've killed norOntair, you're turning control of the crown forests over to the private sector, and you've chopped northern highway budgets.

I have to ask you, Minister, how can you continue to sit at the cabinet table when you're not representing the interests of northern Ontario? That those of us from northern Ontario want you to step down from both your responsibilities for natural resources and for northern development, because, I'll tell you, we would prefer benign neglect to the wilful destruction in which you're engaged these days.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The question referred to that I had last Wednesday was in regard to the MNR and its reductions in staffing. In the northern development ministry, we're monitoring this. You mentioned the abandonment of the north and you used norOntair as an example. The Timmins editorial from last week talks about the success of the private air carriers into the small communities in northern Ontario. They're bragging about that.

This is an option that saves the government that was subsidizing this, the taxpayers of Ontario who were subsidizing it, along with the ONTC, subsidizing the air service in the north, over $5 million. By allowing the sale of that to go through, $14 million is reinvested into the ONTC for future economic development opportunities in northern Ontario. I think that's a success story.

TAXATION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I understand the federal government has undertaken to harmonize the GST with three Atlantic provinces. Why is Ontario not part of this deal?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): As I've indicated in the House previously on this issue, Ontario is not interested in transferring $2 billion a year in taxes to consumers in the province of Ontario. Under the federal proposal of harmonization at 15%, this would expand the base that's charged on such items that are now not taxed at 15%; for example, electricity, home heating, children's clothing, books, new houses, real estate fees -- they would all be taxed under the new combined tax.

In the housing sector alone, that would mean an additional $900 million a year to Ontario consumers. On a house that's valued at $250,000, that's $6,000 in extra taxes. A family that earns between $30,000 and $40,000 a year would pay an additional $185 a year as a result of that harmonization proposal. We're not interested in raising taxation rates for Ontario consumers; we're interested in lowering taxation rates.

Mr Stewart: I understand the federal government will subsidize the Atlantic provinces to the tune of something like $961 million over four years. Will Ontario tax dollars be used to subsidize this arrangement?

Hon Mr Eves: You'd have to ask the federal Minister of Finance that question. Everybody knows the province of Ontario contributes about 41% of the revenues going to the federal government, so I guess if you wanted to use that theory, it could be argued that Ontarians will be subsidizing this $960 million to the tune of almost $400 million. I don't think that's appropriate. If the federal government decides it wants to offer a subsidy of $960 million to three provinces, it should use its own money, not the province of Ontario's money.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMUNICATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Education. It relates to your personal political staff trying to bully an elementary school principal in my constituency. I raised this issue with you on March 19 and you indicated you would get back to me. I've heard nothing from you.

To refresh your memory: An elementary school principal in my constituency sent out a notice to her community outlining the concerns about educational cutbacks, quite a legitimate exercise. Your personal political staff phoned this principal and said, "You have overstepped your bounds as a principal. You have no business revealing to your community in such a partisan manner. I am going to report you to your board and I will talk with" -- and then your personal political staff mentioned a reporter and a local Toronto paper, threatening. This was a clear threat to this principal.

Will you now apologize to the House for the actions of your political staff and will you assure us that you have taken the steps to make certain no one on your political staff does this again in the future?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member opposite for the question and this chance to publicly discuss the results of an investigation I asked my executive assistant to take on some time ago when this subject came to light. My executive assistant did make inquiries about the circumstances that are described. Not surprisingly, there are two versions of the circumstances here.

I think we've been able to ascertain from the only third parties involved in this particular discussion that the member of staff in the ministry office acted in what I believe to be a very professional manner and acted in a way that was meant to serve and to inform the public we serve. I hope that member of my staff and all the other members of my staff and everyone else's staff continue to work in a way that meets the public interest, because that was the interest being served in this particular incident.

Mr Phillips: I want to be very clear on this: This principal is very highly regarded. I've never met the principal before this particular incident, but since I certainly have talked to the principal. The principal is well regarded in every corner of the community, without any question. Against this we have your actions: You never got back to me. March 19 was the date. You never responded to me. Neither you nor anyone on your staff have never phoned this principal to check her story out. What do we have here today? You say: "Listen, there are two sides of the story and I'm only going to listen to one side.

I'm calling the principal a liar and I'm trusting my staff." That's what I think we're hearing from you, Minister.

Frankly, under the circumstances, I personally believe the principal. I've never met her, as I said before, but her reputation is impeccable. My question is this: Are you saying to the House today, and are you prepared to say to the House today, even without talking to the principal, that she's lying?

Hon Mr Snobelen: In response to the subsequent question, I'm not surprised that these sorts of incidents arise from time to time where there are two different versions of a conversation that has happened before.

I can tell you, and I'd like to reaffirm this, which I gave in my original answer and which might help the member opposite understand the process of investigating this, that inside of the versions -- and I won't relate all of it here today again, but I can assure the member opposite that my executive assistant did check with a third-party source who was quoted by both individuals involved and that third-party source, who happens to be a source from the media, verified the version of events that was related by staff.

In any event, for the information of this House, the calls were initiated because we had calls to my office from parents in that area who were concerned about what they thought was a blatantly partisan letter being sent home from school by a teacher. Those parents contacted my office and were very concerned about that. I think at the end of the day, if the member opposite had heard the things that my executive assistant has heard, he would be assured that my staff has operated with the public interest in mind and I think in a reasonable fashion.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. When you took over your portfolio, there were already a number of measures that were in place in the social assistance system to monitor fraud. Some had been in place from the beginning of the system and some had been instituted by our government. Minister, you kept many of those measures, but you introduced a few new ones so you could take credit for any of the savings that resulted. We all understand that's a typical kind of a process.

But finally now we have some of the answers to the questions that were put by us in November 1995 around one of those issues, and that's the snitch line you put in place. Your welfare fraud snitch line cost $166,854 and frankly was just a public relations exercise. Now this morning you told reporters who questioned you about your answers that you couldn't outline the results because of the length of time it takes to investigate allegations.

Minister, information we received from your own ministry shows that more than half the calls that were made to the snitch line were made in those first six weeks, the six weeks covered by our questions. Surely your ministry is functional enough to tell us what happened to allegations that were made more than five months ago and whether they in fact resulted in savings for the social assistance system.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): The member opposite would know full well that it certainly takes some time to go through the process of the court system. As a former Solicitor General, I think she would certainly acknowledge that. It's very important for us, and there's a procedure for this, to make sure there are no unsubstantiated claims that are pursued. We have to make sure that if there are claims of fraud, they are genuine.

I would be happy to indicate that we received between October and February 21 over 15,000 calls. Of those calls, in contradiction to what the honourable member is saying, about 63% have been referred to the local eligibility review officers for further investigation, because there is thought to be some merit here. Clearly the message to the government right now is that no fraud is good fraud.

Mrs Boyd: It's very clear that this expensive public relations exercise, which is going to cost $177,100 next year, is simply a witchhunt.

The minister can't tell us how many of the people who were named were actually in receipt of social assistance. Sure, he says that 64% were referred to local municipal or provincial welfare offices, but he can't tell us how many of the people were legitimately working and were claiming their earnings; he can't tell us how many calls were simply the work of vindictive neighbours; he can't tell us how many of these people are legitimately wondering what kind of witchhunt this is.

Frankly, if we want to talk about fraud, we should talk about the fraud that's involved in a system that costs $6 per call and $8.50 for specific allegations when we get no results after all this time. This is not a good use of money. It's a very expensive way for this minister to try and pretend that he's doing something about managing the social assistance system, just as he's trying to pretend that Ontario Works will fool people into the fact that you're creating jobs.

We want to know whether you intend to keep on with this witchhunt, whether you think this kind of expense is worth the lack of results that we have.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Those certainly are very inflaming words that the honourable member is using. If we can just take ourselves back in time for a bit here, we can see that when we made the announcement about the fraud and the eligibility measures, we indicated that it's our estimation that due to the fraud hotline and the fraud prevention team, we expect to save taxpayers of this province around $25 million this year for an investment of $170,000. I think that's a pretty good investment.

If I can just draw the comparison to Crime Stoppers, I don't see why anyone would not want to report fraud taking place, because the only difference is that this is taxpayers' money that's being defrauded.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Pursuant to standing order 34(e), the member for Fort William has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given yesterday by the Minister of Education and Training concerning education funding. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas on April 11, 1996, we were advised by the Minister of Natural Resources of the government's announcement of a major restructuring which is based on bringing a more businesslike approach to the government; and

"Whereas, as part of the major restructuring, it is the intention of the government to relocate the regional office of the Ministry of Natural Resources from Cochrane to Timmins; and

"Whereas this initiative will result in the approximately 42 positions lost and more than $2 million worth of annual income from our community of 4,500 people, before taking into consideration the impacts on the service sector and other ministries that are being restructured;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the municipal council of the corporation of the town of Cochrane expresses its profound objection to the government's proposal to relocate the Ministry of Natural Resources regional offices from Cochrane to Timmins and requests that an impact analysis study be conducted prior to the relocation of the ministry positions from the town of Cochrane; and

"Be it further resolved that this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario, and the Honourable Chris Hodgson, Minister of Natural Resources."

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed as quickly as possible with legislation to reduce our provincial tax rates, as promised during the last provincial election, and we call on all members of the Parliament of Ontario to support the government in its promise to reduce provincial income tax rates in Ontario."

Like the vast majority of Ontarians, I support this petition and I have signed it.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature in agreement with this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I have a petition from a group of Burlington residents who are concerned with child care in Ontario and I read their statement to you.

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services is undertaking a review of the child care system in Ontario;

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

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is a stated objective of this government to diminish the debt that the present generation leaves to coming generations;

"Whereas non-sustainable activities increase our debt to future generations and otherwise diminish their options for secure lives;

"Whereas non-sustainable activities require continual inputs of non-renewable resources, use renewable resources faster than their rate of renewal, cause cumulative degradation of the environment, require resources in quantities that could never be available for people everywhere and lead to the extinction of other life forms;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to consider sustainability in all its decisions and to avoid giving the appearance of dealing with the problem of debt by shifting our liabilities from financial ledgers to less obvious domains, where their continued growth is less forgiving and harder to correct."

I affix my signature.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

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

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

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

"Minister, people in smaller towns need bus service just as much as people in big cities. We depend upon buses to visit friends and family, to get to appointments in nearby towns, to ship our Christmas presents and to receive our repair parts.

"The undersigned call upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to oppose bus deregulation and the elimination of our bus service."

This has been signed by a number of residents from eastern Ontario, and I affix my signature as well.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition signed by approximately 65 persons, some of whom are from my riding and some of whom are from other ridings, relating to the privatization of public services.

TRANSITION HOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by a number of residents from the county, and I affix my signature to it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition addressed to the government of Ontario, and it's in opposition to the changes for compensation; a petition against the changes the Harris government wants at the WCB, and to regain fair benefits that were agreed to in 1915.

"Remember that injured workers are there because they had the desire to work and pay their dues to society, meaning their government. If you cut their resources off, fewer and fewer workers would be willing to take the unsecured jobs, and therefore there will be fewer workers paying their taxes to the government.

"Think of it as if you would be willing to take a job even if it meant ending up crippled for the rest of your life, without any resources. Even if you take a job and injure yourself, what would you do? Because of your cuts, you'll be placing many, many lives in that very same situation."

I affix my name to the petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I wish to present a petition to the Legislature from approximately 15 constituents relating to their concerns on rent regulation. It's in its proper form and I'll affix my signature to the petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition regarding high quality child care for the children of Ontario to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas as parents and residents of Peterborough we are aware that your government is presently reviewing the Ontario child care system and we agree that changes to this system are needed; and

"Whereas carefully balanced fiscal responsibility and social needs is a necessity; a compassionate society must provide all children with a safe, nurturing and stimulating place during their most formative years,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to retain high-quality, accessible, licensed, non-profit child care as an option for Ontario parents and children."

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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's committed to ensuring a larger share of the education dollar 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 Conservative 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 for junior kindergarten to its previous level and require all school boards to offer junior kindergarten classes."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

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

"Whereas the Hamilton-Wentworth Health Action Task Force, as part of their report, has recommended the closure of St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton; and

"Whereas it is recognized the health care system should be made as efficient as possible; and

"Whereas the quality of health care in our community should not be sacrificed in the name of efficiency; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to protect the quality of health care in Ontario; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that maintaining the presence of St Joseph's Hospital in downtown Hamilton is a vital component of our health care system;

"Therefore

be it resolved that the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council ensure the continuance of the St Joseph's Hospital at its present site."

I affix my signature also.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We oppose the treatment that was given the OPSEU members. We want you to go back and negotiate again at the table with respect to genuine willingness to listen.

"We want you to reconsider the timing of the proposed tax cuts. This is not the way to keep the economy going. This will not mean that you have to resign if you do not go ahead at this time. It will mean that it is just common sense. It is common sense to listen and learn from the many voters who trusted you."

I present this petition on behalf of people in the riding, in Carleton Place, Smiths Falls and area.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here.

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the proposed changes to workers' compensation in Ontario, including the elimination of the current bipartite board of directors, the reduction of temporary benefits from 90% to 85%, the introduction of an unpaid waiting period for compensation benefits, legislated limits on entitlement, reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements.

"We demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent accidents, no reduction in current staff levels at the WCB and continued support for the bipartite board structure."

It's signed by a number of residents from Wheatley, Leamington and Tilbury.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is signed by 24 residents in the riding of Sudbury East and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 30, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending,' but in the November economic statement we see $1.3 billion in cuts to health care spending over the next three years; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to defend health care cuts in funding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs,' but in the November 29 economic statement we see a prediction of only 253,000 jobs created over the next three years and an unemployment rate of 8.6% in two years, which is the same as today; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in the November 29 economic statement cut the Ontario drug benefit plan and is making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his promise and resign."

I've affixed my signature to it and I agree entirely with the petitioners.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MPPS PENSION AND COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉTRIBUTION ET DU RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS

Consideration of Bill 42,

An Act to reform MPPs' pensions, to eliminate tax-free allowances and to adjust MPPs' compensation levels / Projet de loi 42, Loi portant réforme du régime de retraite des députés, éliminant les allocations non imposables et rajustant les niveaux de rétribution des députés.

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I have eight amendments:

section 8 of the bill, subsection 62(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act;

section 8 of the bill, paragraph 14 of subsection 62(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act;

section 8 of the bill, subsection 62(1.1) of the Legislative Assembly Act;

section 9 of the bill, subsection 63.1(1.1) of the Legislative Assembly Act; subsection 13(1) of the bill, subsection 67(7.1) of the Legislative Assembly Act; subsection 15(5) of the bill, subsection 69(5) of the Legislative Assembly Act;

schedule A of the bill, subsection 16(1) of the MPPs Pension Act, 1996; and

schedule A of the bill, subsection 16(2) of the MPPs Pension Act, 1996.

The First Deputy Chair: Shall sections 1 to 7 carry? Carried.

We will deal with the amendment to

section 8.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs):

Section 8 of the bill, subsection 62(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act:

I move that subsection 62(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, as set out in

section 8 of the bill, be amended by striking out the portion that precedes paragraph 1 and substituting the following:

"Salary for additional responsibilities

"

(1) The annual salary of a member is increased by the following amount, expressed as a percentage of the annual salary set out in subsection 61(1), for any one of the following positions that he or she holds:"

The First Deputy Chair: Any debate?

Mr Sampson: Mr Chairman, I'll clarify if you want. This motion clarifies that a member who holds two positions may receive additional annual salary for only one of them. That's the purpose of this amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: Further debate? Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Further amendments?

Hon Mr Villeneuve:

Section 8 of the bill, paragraph 14 of subsection 62(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act:

I move that paragraph 14 of subsection 62(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, as set out in

section 8 of the bill, be amended by striking out "14.1 per cent" and substituting "18.1 per cent."

Mr Sampson: I believe that is not the appropriate amendment. If I could just pass it to my colleague here.

The First Deputy Chair: Just to make sure, I will read the amendment.

Mr Villeneuve moves that paragraph 14 of subsection 62(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, as set out in

section 8 of the bill, be amended by striking out "14.2 per cent" and substituting "18.3 per cent."

Any debate?

Mr Sampson: The purpose of this motion is to provide that the government whip receive an additional annual salary that corresponds to the current legislative arrangements.

The First Deputy Chair: Further debate? Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Sampson, I believe you have another amendment.

Mr Sampson:

Section 8 of the bill, subsection 62(1.1) of the Legislative Assembly Act:

I move that

section 62 of the Legislative Assembly Act, as set out in

section 8 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"More than one position

"

(1.1) If the member holds more than one position listed in subsection (1), he or she is entitled to be paid for the position with the higher salary."

This motion just clarifies that where a member holds more than one position, the member is entitled to only the additional salary for the position with the highest additional salary component.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further debate? Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall

section 8, as amended, stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

An amendment to

section 9, Mr Sampson.

Mr Sampson: I move that

section 63.1 of the Legislative Assembly Act, as set out in

section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Expenses actually incurred

"

(1.1) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents a member from being reimbursed for expenses actually incurred in the discharge of his or her duties as a member."

The motion just clarifies that the prohibition on tax-free allowances does not prevent reimbursement for expenses actually incurred.

The First Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall

section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.

I believe you have another amendment.

Mr Sampson: To

section 13, I believe.

The First Deputy Chair: Shall sections 10 through 12 carry? Carried.

Mr Sampson: I move that

section 13 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"

(1) Section 67 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same, accommodation in Toronto

"

(7.1) The Board of Internal Economy may reimburse a member (up to such maximum amount as the board may determine) for his or her actual costs of accommodation in Toronto if the costs are incurred due to special or unusual circumstances while he or she is on business as a member of the assembly and if the member is not otherwise entitled under this act or the Executive Council Act to be paid an amount for accommodation in Toronto."

This amendment just clarifies that the Board of Internal Economy can reimburse the member for accommodation expenses incurred in special circumstances while on business as a member.

The First Deputy Chair: Any debate? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall

section 13, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall

section 14 carry? Carried.

I believe there's an amendment to

section 15.

Mr Sampson: I move that subsection 69(5) of the Legislative Assembly Act, as set out in subsection 15(5) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Annual salary

"

(5) For the purposes of this section, the annual salary of a member is the annual salary set out in subsection 61(1)."

This amendment deals with the severance allowance payable to a member on ceasing to be a member of this assembly and it's based on the member's annual salary of $78,007. The additional salary paid to ministers and members holding additional positions is not being considered. It's the base amount. The basis of severance allowance proposed in this amendment is the basis currently used in the Legislative Assembly; that is, excluding from the severance allowance calculations of ministers' salaries and members' salaries for additional positions.

The First Deputy Chair: Any debate? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall

section 15, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 16 to 24 carry? Carried.

There are two amendments to the schedule.

Mr Sampson: I move that subsection 16(1) of the MPPs Pension Act, 1996, as set out in

schedule A to the bill, be amended by inserting "on or" in the third line before "June 8, 1995."

The First Deputy Chair: Any debate? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

I believe there's another one.

Mr Sampson: I move that subsection 16(2) of the MPPs Pension Act, 1996, as set out in

schedule A of the bill, be struck out.

That motion deals with a requirement no longer required by Revenue Canada as part of the pension plan.

The First Deputy Chair: Any debate? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall

section 16, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall

schedule A, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall Bill 42, as amended, carry? Carried.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report.

The First Deputy Chair: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

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

MPPS PENSION AND COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉTRIBUTION ET DU RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS

Mr Sterling moved third reading of Bill 42,

An Act to reform MPPs' pensions, to eliminate tax-free allowances and to adjust MPPs' compensation levels / Projet de loi 42, Loi portant réforme du régime de retraite des députés, éliminant les allocations non imposables et rajustant les niveaux de rétribution des députés.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any remarks to make, Mr Sterling?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Not at this moment.

The Acting Speaker: Shall third reading of Bill 42 carry? Carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the member for Hamilton Centre had the floor.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I had ended my remarks yesterday by reading quotes from the back benches of the government side of the House. Lo and behold, one would have thought that were this some grave error or mistake on the part of those honourable members we would have had a shift in their position or in their comments, and yet we all awoke this morning to fresh quotes.

I'll say this much for the two members, the member for Grey-Owen Sound and the member for Quinte: They are consistent and they are certainly holding firm to what I would also agree to be the truth and a reflection of exactly what's going on.

Today's new quotes made by these same honourable members outside the House yesterday, just after we had reviewed them in question period, read as follows. The member for Grey-Owen Sound, asked about the fact that he had reflected earlier that Minister Snobelen didn't put anything in his infamous toolbox, which is effectively what this bill is supposed to be -- the fresh quotes on top of last week's are: "The toolbox is empty. We were promised some tools and they just don't seem to be there.... I'm concerned about it." A further quote from him: "I'm saying they are out of control. I want more direction," speaking of the minister and the Ministry of Education.

Far, far from being just a series of complaints by school board trustees or indeed some kind of rhetoric by the opposition, we see very clearly that even members of the government caucus are so embarrassed by the lack of any real caring about the direction of education in the province that they continue to feel compelled to speak out, not just once, but even after a few days have passed and they've spoken to the minister -- I'll bet that was an interesting discussion -- they continue to claim this government is not doing what it promised to do and that the ministry is out of control and the minister is creating a phony crisis wherein he hides behind this crisis and uses it as his excuse for slashing and cutting and quite frankly gutting much of what education is all about.

I maintained yesterday in my remarks that the political agenda here was not only to achieve the financial goal, but the other part of the political objective was to give someone else the blame; that this government would be the author of this attack on the future of our children, on our education system, but would finagle it in such a way that the local school board trustees are deemed to be the bad people who are making cuts to the local education system.

I can say with a great deal of confidence that the school board trustees in both the private and public boards across this province are not about to stand there and wear the negative politics this government deserves to carry. They're not about to do that, and I can say it's because of the damage it does to the local education system that they're not going to do it.

It's not a political agenda on their part, because we know there's a mixture of representatives from all three parties here and people who are not aligned to any particular party, and they all feel the same way. I've been lobbied by them; all the members, including government members, I'm sure, have been lobbied. If any of the government members would dare to meet with their local trustees, I'm sure they would begin -- begin -- to get a sense of the hopelessness and helplessness these school board trustees feel as they're dealing with these impossible situations, absolutely impossible. Talk about irresponsible.

This is a government that said to those school boards, "You will take a hit that is equivalent to" -- based on their fiscal year and the number of months they have to actually find the savings, that in effect gives them a hit of $1 billion across the province, and this government has said to those trustees: "You go find that $1 billion, each of your boards, your share of it.

You find that $1 billion, but don't you dare cut anything that would affect classroom learning and don't you dare raise taxes." Isn't that wonderful, and isn't that easy for the Minister of Education and the Premier to do, to stand there and paint this wonderful scenario they would like to see happen, which anyone who understands the realities of budgeting on school boards and at the local level would know is absolutely impossible. You can't do it.

The minister continues to stand up and say that 47% of the money spent by school boards does not affect the classroom. I invite the minister to come into my home town of Hamilton, meet with my school board trustees, look them in the face and say to them, "You effect these kinds of cuts; don't affect the classroom at all and don't raise taxes." I defy the Minister of Education and Training to come into Hamilton and do that, because he will hear very clearly that you can't do it, that it can't be done.

This government knows it, but they don't care. Why don't they care? Their greater priority than children's education is their tax cut. We know that to pay for that tax cut they have to find $5 billion a year, so $5 billion is being found in

part in the education system -- $1 billion worth, in fact -- so that this government can give the top 10% income earners of this province a 30% tax cut, because we know that top 10% income earners will receive over 60% of that tax benefit, that 60% of that $5 billion will go to the top 10% income earners. I say, on behalf of the school board trustees in my community, that this whole thing sickens and angers them, and so it should.

I move now to what is happening in my community and how it relates to Bill 34, which we have here before us today.

First of all, the school board trustees in my community agree with the two Tory government backbenchers that the toolkit that is supposedly this bill we're debating today does not do the job. You've managed to upset virtually everyone involved in education, from school board trustees to administrators, to unions, to cleaners, to the community, everybody, and yet this minister continues to stand up and say that he is helping the school boards achieve the objectives this government is forcing down their throats.

What is the result in Hamilton? There was a major struggle to keep junior kindergarten in the city of Hamilton. If it weren't for the efforts of our school board trustees -- I give them their due -- and Friends of Junior Kindergarten, an organization of parents who care who exerted the kind of political pressure at the local level that this government claims to care and support -- in this case it was used to keep something that this government is prepared to let go, and that is junior kindergarten.

You look at the language in here and it talks about "boards may choose." The reality is that this government is saying, "Trustees and school boards, if you have no other choice, as you see it, to find cuts, then we're prepared to see you sever JK in order to achieve our fiscal needs," which of course take us back to the tax cut.

The youngest kids, at a time when they can benefit the most in terms of junior kindergarten, are okay to cut loose, but will this government take responsibility? No. They will stand up as they have done and say, "That's a local decision; we didn't decide to cut junior kindergarten from that particular board, so don't blame us," and then sit down in their place, when the reality is that they've put school board trustees in such a box that they have no alternative.

Our job, as I see it, is to explain to the people of Ontario, on behalf of those school board trustees and on behalf of parents and teachers who care, that this is exactly what's going on. Every time we see a cut like this, make sure, parent, taxpayer, that you understand it's the agenda of the Harris government at Queen's Park that is forcing school board trustees into these awful predicaments.

At the end of the day I'm very proud to say that the school board in my home town of Hamilton has preserved junior kindergarten, but at a cost. I see a couple of backbenchers nodding their heads like, "See, we told you." The reality is no, it doesn't fit exactly your perfect little world that doesn't exist in Toryland.

The fact of the matter is that there will be, subject to one caveat which I'll come to, a 3.16% increase in the assessment rate for education in the city of Hamilton. That amounts to an assessment increase of about $31 on the average home. I can say that I know the school board trustees in Hamilton are not proud of that aspect. They're not proud that they have to raise taxes by that amount, but I want to serve notice that I'm very proud of their political guts to take whatever heat there is rather than decimate junior kindergarten in my community. I think there has to be those kinds of offers of support, because as politicians we know how difficult that is.

I would be much more worried about the future of the children in my riding if we lost junior kindergarten, and I see part of my obligation as their representative here at Queen's Park to make sure the blame is put where it belongs. Every dollar of that increase in Hamilton is a result of the Mike Harris government and their agenda, period, full stop.

I mentioned a caveat. Even with that -- and I'm going to mention some of the cuts it took to arrive at that figure -- there's still the need for this board, in order to stay at this level of increase, to find some way with the teachers of taking $5 million out of their collective agreement. I'm not going to get embroiled in that discussion and that debate at this stage, because that has to happen initially with the school board trustees and the elected union representatives.

But I think it's shameful that, first of all, the school board trustees were forced into a position of having to increase taxes in order to keep junior kindergarten in Hamilton; and, further, that the only way they could do that was through some expectations that now the teachers are going to have to come up with $5 million.

I know this government hates teachers. They think they're all overpaid and underworked, the same as they viewed OPSEU workers and CUPE workers and, quite frankly, any other worker who doesn't fit their little world of how things ought to operate. The fact of the matter is, it is a crying shame that this kind of dynamic at a time when we've got a crisis in our education system and a problem to deal with on the fiscal side -- these are the kinds of things our school board trustees and the elected representatives of OSSTF and the other unions have to deal with. It truly is a shame that that's what's happening.

I want to return to the point where this government said, "Well, 47% of all the expenditures at the school board do not relate to classroom learning." Well, in my riding, in my community, where these very courageous school trustees have taken the stand they have, these are the kinds of cuts they also had to make to keep the increase at the level it's at. They cut $611,000 -- had to cut; the blame belongs here, not with them.

They were forced to cut $611,000 from the transportation budget for special education students -- don't you feel real proud about that, Harris Tories? -- $500,000 from supply teachers, $220,000 affecting adult students in regular school, 14.6 elementary teaching positions, $100,000 in books, films and software.

I defy any member of this government to stand up and tell me and the people of Hamilton how $100,000 taken from the acquisition fund for books and films and software is not going to affect classroom learning and classroom teaching. You cannot possibly defend --

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Stop yelling. We can hear you.

Mr Christopherson: One of the backbenchers is saying, "Lower your voice." That's because you don't want to hear this. You don't like it when people point out the fallacy of what you're doing. You're going to continue to hear from me at this level and louder for the next four years, until we can turf you out of there and put this province back on the road to caring about people and caring about children.

Further, there are 82.8 full-time equivalents, which is 104 working people -- not that this government cares about working people -- who have received and will receive their pink slip who are cleaners. Some, such as the Minister of Education and Training, will say that cleaners do not directly affect classroom learning. I would ask any of those members to speak with Mr Ray Mulholland, who is a school board trustee in Hamilton and has been for 22 years. He represents ward 4, which happens to be the same ward I represented when I was an alderman and regional councillor.

Trustee Mulholland is one of the most respected elected people in the entire community of Hamilton, and what he has to say about whether cleaners affect classrooms needs to be heard, whether you want to hear it or not.

It's his contention, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that if you can't clean the schoolrooms properly you're going to affect the kids. First of all, if you've got kids who have allergies and sensitivities and that room is not being cleaned properly and regularly, there's a good chance a child afflicted with sensitivities to those kinds of ailments will not be able to attend school full-time because they're going to be off sick. If you don't have enough cleaners in the school when they're needed and you have an incident where a child is sick in that classroom, for all intents and purposes, until that's cleaned up, the learning in that classroom has stopped. The learning is not going on.

This government doesn't want to recognize that all these things -- transportation, cleaning, teachers, books, films -- have to do with classroom learning. This government rejects that and says, "No, that's not part of classroom learning."

I say to the government very clearly that across the province we're seeing board after board after board facing the same dilemma, wanting to preserve and enhance their education system, being told by this government that they have to make multimillion-dollar cuts, that they cannot and should not affect classroom learning. "Oh, and by the way, don't you dare raise taxes either," because you have deemed that shouldn't happen in the Mike Harris empire. The Hamilton example shows you can't do all of that. This government knows that. Even they can figure out that you can't do that.

But they don't care enough to back away from their tax cut or to provide some real assistance to school boards. They would rather just put out their political message, "This is the way you ought to do your business," and then stand back and let all the chaos take place.

In my community -- and I know it's different in some; they're breaking it down differently. I want to come back to the issue of JK. I feel very strongly that not only school boards but municipal councils and regional councils need to approach their budgeting in the same way as our school board trustees.

Unfortunately, we can't do anything about the directives and orders this government gives out -- it's a duly elected government with a majority in this House and it can, at the end of the day, do as it damn well pleases -- but being handed that nightmare scenario, I approve and support the approach of the Hamilton public school board trustees wherein they said, "We will cut everywhere that we possibly can and we will do everything humanly possible to prevent a tax increase," but when we get into a crunch, when we get into a serious crunch between something like junior kindergarten or a modest increase in taxes, they will choose the children and their future, they will choose the preservation as much as they can of the system we have in our community.

I would hope that city councils, when they're facing the same dilemma -- because this government's putting the boot to municipal councils exactly the same way as they are to school boards, and the regional councillors, same thing is happening there and the same choices are being looked at.

I'm very hopeful that most of those councils and school boards will take a much more humane approach to budgeting than this government cares to do, because all this government cares about is making sure that they're more right-wing than Ralph Klein, that they do everything that the Common Sense Revolution says regardless of how much nonsense it might be or how much circumstances might change. This is the only thing that matters. This is the holy grail. It's the Common Sense Revolution, and that has all the answers to every problem.

With one eye very carefully affixed on the next election, this government marches in legislation, piece after piece, that goes after our health care system, breaking their promises, goes after the education system, breaking their promises, attacking the poor, attacking working people, attacking the labour movement, attacking environmental protection. That's the list, and you haven't even been in office a year yet. That's the list.

When we talk about human rights and we take a look at what you've done there, this government is totally bereft of any kind of understanding of where most people are and what they care about in the province of Ontario. I know you'll point back to June 8 and say that gives you the magic mandate to do whatever you want, and it certainly gives you the right to sit on that side and be a majority government. But I don't believe for a moment, I honestly do not believe, that the people of Ontario wanted a government to go in with a meat cleaver and just tear apart everything that makes this a great place to live. I don't believe that's the case.

I think the sort of action that the school board trustees in Hamilton have taken is proof of that, because there's a group of elected officials in their own right that have rejected your agenda that says, "No matter how much harm we do to kids, meet the fiscal reality." I think they have met the fiscal reality. I know how hard they've worked. I know each and every member, some better than othe